UC  NRLF 


B  ^  sie  b33 


JwlBRARV 

OK  TIIK 

University  of  California. 


aiKT  OH 


Class 


The  True  Story  of  John  Smyth, 

THE     SE-BAPTIST, 


AS    TOLD   r>Y   HIMSELF  AND   HIS   CONTEMPORARIES- 


WITH    AN    INQUIrV 


Whether  Dipping  were  a  New  Mode  of  Baptism 
•    in  England,  in  or  about  1641 ; 

AND 

SOME   CONSIDERATION   OF   THE    HISTORICAL  VALUE   OF 
CERTAIN   EXTRACTS    FROM   THE   ALLEGED 

OF    THE    BAPTIST    CHURCH    O?   EPWORTH,    CROVVLE,    AND    BUTTERWICK   (eNG.),    LATELY    PUBLISHED,    AND 
CLAIMED   TO   SUGGEST    IMPORTANT    MODIFICATIONS   OF   THE    HISTORY   OF   THE    17TH   CENTURY. 


PVii/i  Collections  t07uard  a  Bibliography  of  the  first  two  generations  of  the  Baptist  Controversy. 


By   henry    MARTYN    DEXTER. 


BOSTON: 
LEE    AND    SHEPARD, 

i88i. 


The  True  Story  of  John  Smyth, 

THE     SE-BAPTIST, 


AS   TOLD   BY  HIMSELF  AND   HIS   CONTEMPORARIES; 


WITH    AN    INQUIRY 


Whether  Dipping  were  a  New  Mode  of  Baptism 
in  England,  in  or  abont  1641 ; 

AND 

SOME  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  HISTORICAL  VALUE  ©F 
CERTAIN  EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  ALLEGED 

**3tncicnt  0ccotti^*' 

OF    THE    BAPTIST   CHURCH    O?   EPWORTH,    CROWLE,    AND    BUTTERWICK   (eNG.),    LATELY    TUBI-ISHED,    AND 
CLAIMED    TO   SUGGEST    IMPORTANT   MODIFICATIONS   OF   THE   HISTORY   OF   THE    17TH   CENTURY. 


IVith  Collections  toward  a  Bibliography  of  the  first  two  geiterations  of  the  Baptist  Controversy. 


By  henry  martyn  uextp:r. 


BOSTON: 
LEE    AND     SHEPARD, 

1881. 


:>c  u^ 


Copyright,  iSSi,  by  II.  M.  Dexter. 


Stereotyped  by  Thomas  Todd,  Congregational  House,  Boston. 


TO 

BROWN   UNIVERSITY  and  YALE   COLLEGE: 
'^13   ©ipioma 


FROM     EACH     OK    WHICH 


THE  AUTHOR  HAS  THE  HONOR  TO  BE  A  "MASTER  OF  ARTS," 


BY   THE   TRAINING   OF   EACH   OF   WHICH   THROUGH   ONE    HALF   OF  THE   COLLEGE   COURSE 

HE    HOI-KS    NOT   TO   HAVE    BEEN    WHOLLY    UNFITrKD   TO    HE,    IF   NOT   A   MASTER,   YET   A 

SCRUPULOUS  PR.\CTICER,  OF  THE  ART  OF  CLEARLY  SEEING  AND  FAIRLY 

STATING    THE    TRUTH    OF    MATTERS,    AS    TO    WHICH 

HAPTISTS   AND   CONGREGATIONALISTS,    IN    CONSCIENCE,    FEELING   AND   ACTION, 

HAVE   DIFFERED; 

(2t5Jjff  55iscus"8"ion  is"  JtffcctionatdtJ  ©cdicatcD. 


112731 


4'+.   Jn  fourtie  Dapcs,  then  tnrote  ttuo  f)unDreti  anti  four  33oofee0. 

45.   anB  tD|)cn  tl;e  fourtie  Dapc0  toerc  fulfillcti,  tfje  iilofl  Ibiefj  fpa&e,  fapinc  ••  '^i>e 
first  tijat  tf)ou  fjafl  toritten,  publift  openip,  tl^at  tlje  toortljie  aim  tntoortfjie  map  reatie  it. 

.^(3.    33ut  beep  pe  feucntie  latl,  tfjat  tf)0u  maicll  ciue  tf^em  to  the  tnifc  amonc  t})j? 
i;?eopIe. 

47.  Jfor  in  tbem  ia  tf)c  (Heine  of  (Hnoerfltanuinos,  anti  tijc  JFountaine  of  Mifnome, 
ant)  the  Eiuer  of  fi^notoleDge. 

48.  anu  3[  HiD  foe. 


If  thou  canft  bring  3lcummim  trees  to  the  Worke  of  the  Temple,  I  pray  thee  do 
it:  my  Jfirre  fhall  giue  place  —  and  how  canft  thou  require  more  of  inee  ? 


INTRODUCTION. 


^^^^^T  need  hardly  be  said  that  the  subjects  herein  discussed  I  do  not  now  approach  for 
&^  ^^;f(c  the  first  time.  The  very  circumstance  that  some  former  judgments  in  regard  to 
i^^-.  .'^^  them  have  been  questioned  by  most  respectable  critics,  together  with  the  desire  to 
exhume  from  the  literature  of  the  past  the  means  of  fairly  concluding,  if  possible,  the  dis- 
cussion, led  me  to  take  advantage  of  a  few  days  of  leisure  during  the  past  winter  in  London 
to  restudy  them.  I  herewith  submit  the  results  with  some  confidence  on  two  points,  viz. : 
first,  that  I  am  able  to  introduce  into  the  case  not  merely  valuable  but  decisive  new  testi- 
mony; and,  second,  that  there  is  small  probability  of  further  important  addition  to  the  roll  of 
witnesses.  I  have  — so  far  as  I  am  aware,  for  the  first  time  — attempted  some  Bibliographical 
account  of  the  Baptist  controversy  in  England  from  1640  to  1700  inclusive;  and,  while  I  am 
far  from  supposing  the  result  to  be  complete,  I  am  disposed  to  think  that  it  includes  every 
utterance  of  much  consequence  on  every  side.  And,  having  personally  made  close  examina- 
tion of  something  like  seventy-five  per  cejit.  of  the  volumes  therein  catalogued;  including  nearly 
or  quite  every  treatise  likely  to  be  of  special  value  toward  settling  points  in  controversy;  I 
cannot  anticipate  much  new  light  as  likely  to  dawn  from  sources  still  remaining  occult. 

I  believe  it  to  be  a  principle  more  and  more  establishing  itself  in  the  conviction  of  students 
of  history,  that  concerning  any  remote  period  contemporary  evidence  where  it  can  be  had, 
fairly  weighed,  must  always  take  precedence  of  the  statements  of  set  histories  written  long 
afterward,  and,  from  necessity,  and  perhaps  the  fashion  of  the  times,  made  up  more  largely 
from  tradition  and  the  reminiscences  of  the  aged,  than  from  the  sifting  of  original  records,  or 
the  exhaustive  examination  of  the  controversial  writings  of  the  period  under  r^iew.  To 
take  the  case  in  hand:  it  was  not  until  1738  —  from  three  to  four  generations  after  the  occur- 
rences first  to  be  narrated  —  that  Thomas  Crosby  began  to  publish  that  Hijloiy  of  the  EnglifJt 
Baptijls  which  has  been  naturally  taken  as  chief  authority  on  the  matters  which  it  treats; 
while  in  various  ways  he  makes  it  clear,  not  only  that  he  never  consulted,  but  that  he  never 
even  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of,  a  large  majority  of  the  more  than  four  hun- 
dred volumes,  which,  between  1640  and  the  close  of  that  century,  had  been  published  upon  the 
mode  and  subjects  of  baptisr.i,  with  the  personal  and  other  issues  thereto  related.  I  lis  discus- 
sion of  the  question  whether  John  Smyth  baptized  himself  [i :  91-ioc]  is  avowedly  founded 
upon  a  few  extracts  from  Smyth's  treatises  and  those  of  his  opponents  as  found  at  second-hand 
in  a  book  published  after  he  had  been  in  his  grave  sevcniy-cight  years;  strengthened  by  the 
writer's  conjecture  that  John  Robinson  and  others  were  so  imbittered  against  the  poor  man 
that  they  could  hardly  be  expected  to  tell  the  truth  concerning  him.     It  can  surely  admit  of 


[vi] 


small  question  that  such  "history"  as  that,  can  now  have  value  only  as  its  conclusions  mav  be 
confirmed  by  books  and  manuscripts  still  remaining  from  the  pen  of  the  Se-baptist  himself, 
and  those  who  discussed  his  notions  with  him.  The  same  principle  holds  as  to  the  question 
whether  Dipping  were  introduced  in  or  about  1641,  as  a  new  mode  of  baptism,  by  English 
churches  which  had  previously  been  differenced  from  their  Separatist  brethren  only  by  reject- 
ing the  baptism  of  infants,  without  controversy  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  rite  should  be 
administered.  If  such  were  the  fact,  we  cannot  fail  to  find  traces  of  it  in  the  tracts — of 
which,  as  will  be  seen,  I  have  traced  more  than  one  hundred  in  the  first  five  years  —  which 
swarmed  from  licensed  and  secret  presses,  on  that  general  subject.  In  their  pages,  and  not  in 
the  vague  and  possibly  not  wholly  unprejudiced  surmises  of  Crosby  ninety-six  years  after,  and 
of  Ivimey  one  hundred  and  sixty-nine  years  after,  and  of  others  still  later,  the  truth  is  most 
likely  to  be  found;  as  a  single  pertinent  illustration  of  which  may  be  named  tfie  fact  that 
Ivimey  [i :  157]  and  Brook  [iii :  399]  represent  Praise-God  Barbon  as  a  Baptist  minister,  while 
his  own  books  [Nos.  6  and  18,  Appendix']  show  him  as  writing  against  the  Baptists. 

Speaking  of  prejudice,  I  am  reminded  that  my  own  labor  herein  has  been  much  increased 
by  the  fact  that  on  former  occasions  I  have  been  so  unfortunate  as  to  receive  censure  from 
Baptist  critics;  some  of  whom  have  not  hesitated  to  intimate  that  my  sectarian  bias  is  so 
strong  as  to  render  me  incapable  of  ordinary  fairness  in  the  treatment  of  such  subjects.  This 
"  excellent  oil  "  has  not  broken  my  head.  I  am  humbly  sorry  if  there  have  been  any  desert 
on  my  part  of  such  censure  in  the  past;  while  I  am  sure  that  the  remembrance  of  these 
adverse  criticisms  has  in  my  renewed  investigations  stimulated  me  to  an  indefatigable  anxiety 
as  to  three  points,  viz. :  to  get  at  all  the  truth ;  to  estimate  that  truth  with  absolute  impartial- 
ity; and  to  record  the  results  of  that  estimate  in  the  exactest  manner.  As  to  every  matter 
touched  by  this  investigation  I  can  heartily  adopt  the  language  of  Dr.  Evans  [Early  English 
Baptists,  etc.  i :  204] :  "  to  us  it  is  of  no  moment  whether  it  be  true  or  false,  beyond  the  interest 
which  we  have  in  it  as  an  historical  fact."  Whether  John  Smyth  baptized  himself;  whether 
Dipping  were,  or  were  not,  in  the  last  ten  years  of  the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  a 
mode  of  Baptism  new  to  England ;  and  whether  the  Crowlc  papers  are  veritable  ancient  rec- 
ords or  a  witless  modern  fraud;  are  questions  which  at  no  point  touch  anything  vital  to  —  I 
might  even  say,  anything  reasonably  cherished  with  especial  tenderness  by  —  either  Baptist  or 
Pacdobaptist  believers.  There  would  seem  therefore  to  be  no  good  reason  why  they  should 
not  be  studied  in  as  dry  a  light,  and  issued  with  as  frigid  a  candor,  as  if  they  had  their  being 
in  the  domain  of  metaphysics,  and  not  of  history.  In  such  temper  I  have — not  without  dili- 
gence and  prayer  —  sought,  in  the  fear  of  God  and  the  love  of  truth,  to  write;  having,  in 
every  case,  directed  all  who  may  be  disposed  to  doubt  or  criticise  my  conclusions  to  the  exact 
sources  from  which  they  have  been  derived.  Can  it  be  presumptuous,  or  offensive,  if  I  respect- 
fully ask  my  Baptist  brethren  to  meet  mc  with  a  like  spirit,  in  the  examination  of  what  I  have 
written?  II.  M.  D. 

Gnystoiics,  New  Bedford,  Mass.,  i  November,  iSSi. 


CONTENTS. 


TAGS 

CHAPTER  I.     The  True  Story  of  John  Smyth,  the  Sf/Raptist;  as  toi.d  py 

HIMSELF  AND  HIS  CONTEMPORARIES I-3S 

His  birth  and  training i 

Beneficed  at  Gainsborough-on-Trent i 

Resigns  his  living  and  gathers  a  separate  church  at  Gainsborough  .     .  2 

Emigrates  to  Amsterdam 2 

What  sort  of  a  man  he  was 3 

'^  His  first  church  difficulty,  and  its  cause 5 

^His  own  statement  of  the  case 7 

''When  did  his  change  of  conviction  as  to  baptism  take  place  ?     .    .    .  8 
Testimony  of   Clyfton,  Ainsworth,  Bradford,   Bernard,  etc.   and   of 

Smyth  himself 9-10 

-'What  modes  of  baptism  were  then  prevalent,  and  which  mode  did 

Smyth  and  his  company  probably  make  use  of  ? 10-26 

Baptism  by  affusion  clearly  existed  by  100  years  after  the  Apostles     .  1 1 

Testimony  of  Cyprian '    .     ,     .  n 

Clement  V.  and  the  2d  Council  of  Ravenna 12 

Lyndcwood,  and  the  two  prayer-books  of  Edward  VI 12 

Calvin's  view,  and  that  of  Thomas  Becon 13 

While  the  rubric  enjoined  immersion  in  England,  it  was  the  practice 

there  in  the  time  of  our  fathers  to  affuse,  or  aspcrge 14 

View  of  Zuingli,  and  of  the  Helvetic,  Belgic  and  Bohemian  Confes- 
sions    15 

The  French  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches 16 

Description  by  Sir  William  Brereton  of  a  Dutch  baptism 17 

The  original  Anabaptists  did  not  immerse 17 

Hoornbeek,  Hortcnsius,  Guy  de  Bres,  and  ^^«  iW«/ Z/if</fXr«     ...  iS 

Robert  Baylie's  statement 19 

Illustration  of  ancient  Anabaptist  baptism  from  an  old  print  ....  20 

The  Collegianten  (in  1619)  the  first  to  immerse  in  Holland 21 

The  Mennonites,  though  Baptists,  did  not  dip 21 

Fonts  of  i6th  and  17th  centuries  not  adapted  to  adult  immersion    .    .  23 

Washing  the  word  ordinarily  applied  to  the  rile 24 

Did  Mr.  Smyth  first  affuse  himself,  and  then  administer  the  ordin.ance 

to  his  associates  ? 26 

x/ His  view  was  that  the  true  [/.<'.  believer's]  baptism   had  died  out  of 

the  world 27 

v/^lle  thought  a  church  covenanting  together  could  re-originate  it  .    .    .  27 

(vii) 


[viii] 

CHAPTER  I.     {Continued.)  pacb 

Why  he  did  not  seek  affusion  from  the  Mennonites 28 

v^e,  and  his,  first  disbanded  their  former  church,  and  gave  up  their 


offices 


29 


Probable  modus  operandi  of  the  se-baptism 30 

Evidences  of  eight  witnesses  cognizant  of  the  facts,  that  Smvth  first 

baptized  himself  and  then  his  company 3i~33 

Further  testimony 33~35 

The  brief  remainder  of  his  story 35~3S 

v^myth  excluded  from  his  own  Baptist  church,  and  the  reasons    ...  36 

""■Refused  admission  by  the  Mennonites 37 

Death  of  Smyth  (in  161 2)  of  consumption,  and  burial 38 

CHAPTER  II.    An  Inquiry  whether  dipping  were  a  new  mode  of  baptism  in 

England  IN,  OR  ABOUT,  1641 39-62 

Baptist  impressions  to  the  contrary 39 

The  King's  Pamphlets  as  a  source  of  evidence 40 

Earliest  date  of  public  Confession  of  immersion 41 

At  least  eleven  General  Baptist  Churches  which  did  not  dip  ....  42 

The  case  of  Rlr.  Spilsbury's  church  in  Wapping  in  1633 43 

Mr.  Spilsbury  did  not  go  to  Holland  for  Baptism 44 

First  reference  to  any  novel  administration  of  the  rite 46 

Twenty  witnesses  that  dipping  was  a  "  new  wav,"  etc 4^-53 

Proof  that  it  was  introduced  about  1641 49 

Was  dipping  in  England  originated  from  Holland .-' 53-56 

.  Were  the  candidates  at  first  in  England  dipped  naked  ? 56-59 

Circumstantial  account  of  a  dipping  at  Hemel  Hempstead  (1646)   .     .  60 

Specimen  of  the  debate  in  1644 6i 

CHAPTER  III.    Some  Consideration  of  the  historical  value  of  the  alleged 

"Ancient  Records"  OF  THE  Baptist  Church  OF  Crowle,  ETC.    .    .    .  63-86 

Statement  as  to  those  papers,  and  how  they  became  public     ....  63 

A  transcript  thereof 64-67 

Rev.  Mr.  Stutterd's  certificate  of  the  genuineness  of  that  transcript    .  6S 

Criticism  of  the  Covenant 69 

Miscellaneous  blunders  in  little  things 70-72 

Blunders  as  to  Samuel  Fuller 72 

Blunders  as  to  Edward  Winslow 73 

Blunders  as  to  John  Carver 74 

Blunders  as  to  John  Norcott 74 

Blunders  as  to  John  Murton 75 

Blunders  as  to  William  Bradford 76 

Blunders  as  to  William  Brewster 77 

Blunders  as  to  John  Smyth 78 

Correspondence  as  to  these  "  records  " S2-S3 

These  "records"  a  base  forgery, at  some  date  since  1856 84 

The  immense  and  unrelieved  stupidity  thereof 86 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX 8; 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE   TRUE    STORY   OF   JOHN    SMYTH,  THE   SE-BAPTIST ;   AS  TOLD    BY  HIMSELF  AND 

HIS    CONTEMPORARIES. 


^HE  John  Smyth  with  whom  we  are  now  concerned  must  have  been 
born  early  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  probably 
of  parents  who  were  not  in  affluent  circumstances,  inasmuch  as 
he  first  emerges  to  view  when  matriculating  at  Christ's  College,  Cam- 
bridge, as  a  sizar*  26  Nov.  157 1.  He  proceeded  B.A.  in  1575-6,  and  was 
chosen  Fellow,  and  commenced  M.A.  in  1579."  Francis  Johnson  was  here,  at 
one  time,  his  tutor.^  He  appears  to  have  been  the  Master  of  Arts  of  this 
name  who,  as  we  learn  from  Strype,*  on  the  first  day  of  Lent,  1585,  preached 
at  Cambridge  a  doctrine  of  Sabbath-keeping  so  much  in  advance  of  the  public 
sentiment  of  the  time,  as  to  lead  to  his  citation  before  the  Vice  Chancellor  in 
the  great  chamber.  He  was  clearly,  however,  not,  as  has  been  alleged,^  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Smith  who,  in  1592,  was  confined  eleven  months  in  the  Marshalsea; 
because  the  name  of  that  sufferer  was  William.^  He  is  next  heard  from, 
vaguely,  on  the  authority  of  John  Cotton,  as  preacher  to  the  city  of  Lincoln.' 
He  appears  to  have  been  afterward  beneficed  at  Gainsborough-on-Trent.*  We 
have  his  own  statement  that  before  separating  from  the  Establishment  he 
passed  through  nine  months  of  doubt,  and  study ;'  and  once  held,  in  Coventry, 
with  Masters  Dod,  Hildersham  and  Barbon,  a  conference  "  about  withdrawing 


'  A  sizar  al  Cambridge  —  like  a  batteler  at  Oxford  — 
was  a  student  who  waited  on  the  Fellows,  etc.  and  ate 
after  them  at  the  public  table  without  charge;  who 
was  therefore  often,  and  perhaps  usually,  the  child  of 
parents  too  poor  to  bear  his  college  expenses. 

-These  dates  have  been  verified  from  the  original 
MS.  Records  of  the  University,  now  to  be  consulted 
in  the  Registry  Office  in  the  Pitt  Press  Building,  Cam- 
bridge, Eng. 

^  Gov.  Bradford,  Dialogue,  etc.  in  Young,  Plym. 
Chron.  450;  Bernard,  Piaine  Euidences,  t\.c.  19;  Cot- 
ton, IVay  0/  Coup.  Chhs.  Cleared,  etc.  7. 

*  Annals  of  ttie  Reformation,  etc.  iii  (1):  496. 

"  Hunter  says  this,  Founders  of  Xeiv  Plytnonth,  etc. 
35;  and  Barclay  \tntur  Life  oftlu  Religious  Societies 
of  the  Commonwealth,   elc.    52] ;    while  Waddington 


[Congregatiottal  History,  etc.  ii :  157]  falls  into  the 
same  confusion  between  individuals. 

'  F.  Johnson,  Letter  to  Lord  Burghley,  Lansdowne 
A/SS.  Ixxv:  50;  F.  Johnson,  Answer  to  M.  //.  Jacob 
His  Defence,  etc.  200. 

'  "As  for  Master  Smith  he  standeth  and  falleth  to 
his  own  Master;  whilst  he  was  preacher  to  the  citic  of 
Lincolne,  he  wrought  with  God  there."  Reply  to  Mr. 
lyUliams,  his  Examination,  etc.  58. 

^UrooV.  [Lives  of  tlte  Puritans,  eic.  ii:  196].  This 
takes  confirmation  from  the  fact  that  Bernard  [Plaine 
Euidences,  elc.  21]  says  Smyth  "was  made  minister 
by  Bishop  Wickam  ; "  and'VVm.  Wickham  was  Bishop 
of  Lincoln,  the  diocese  in  which  Gainsborough  is, 
from  1584  to  1595. 

•  Parallelcs,  Censvres,  Observations,  etc.  128. 


(0 


[2] 


from  true  Churches,  Ministers  and  Worship,  corrapted."  '°  Possibly  as  early 
as  1602,  or  thereabouts,"  he  gathered  a  separate  church  at  Gainsborough,  of 
which  he  subsequently  became  pastor.'-  And,  probably  in  1606,  with  his  little 
flock  he  emigrated  to  Amsterdam,  in  Holland,  in  search  of  some  liberty  of 
conscience  and  worship  denied  them  at  home."  A  Barrowist  church,  com- 
posed of  English  Separatists  most  of  whom  had  removed  thither  from  London, 
had  been  there  before  them,  certainly  since  1595  ;'*  of  which  Francis  Johnson 
was  pastor  and  Henry  Ainsworth  teacher  ;  and  which,  having  outlived  sore 
trials  in  its  earlier  years,  had  now  grown  to  a  considerable  size,  and,  in  its 
humble  way,  reached  a  fair  degree  of  outward  prosperity.  Here  Smyth  and 
his  people  established  themselves,  by  the  side  of  the  older  residents,  as  the 
"  Second  English  Church  at  Amsterdam."  " 


1"  IVay  of  Conf^.  Chks.  Cleared,  etc.  7 ;  Para'ielcs, 
etc.  129. 

■  "  The  sole  authority  for  this  date  is  Morton  [N.  E. 
Meinoriall,  etc.  i],  as  confirmed  by  him  in  the  margin 
of  I'radford's  Sketch  of  Brewster,  copied  from  the 
Governor's  MSS.  upon  the  Plymouth  Church  Records. 
fVoung,  Plym.  Ckron.  etc.  465.]  Prince  \_Annals, 
etc.  Pt.  i :  4]  accepts  the  date  on  the  theory  that 
although  unmentioned  by  Bradford,  Morton  had  recov- 
ered it  "  from  some  other  Writings  ...  or  from  Oral 
Conference."  Though  rather  early,  this  is  not  an  im- 
possible year,  and  Hunter  \_Fowiders,  etc.  Sg]  seems  to 
favor  it. 

■-  Here  again  Bernard  (his  neighbor)  testifies  [Plaine 
Euidences,  etc.  21]:  "By  and  by  in  Brownisme  be 
renounced  [his  Church  of  England  ministry]  &  was 
made  Minister  by  Tradesmen,  and  called  himselfe  The 
Fttstour  oftlte  Church  at  Gainsborough" 

"  Evans  [i :  202],  Ivimey  [Hist.  Eng.  Dap.  etc.  i : 
114]  and  Taylor  [Hist.  Eng.  Gen.  Bap.  etc.  i:  67] 
concur  in  naming  1606  as  the  year  of  this  exodus.  On 
the  other  hand  Smyth  writes  himself  "  Pastor  off  the 
church  at  Ganesburgh"  in  a  letter  which  [Paradelcs, 
etc.  2]  it  would  seem  must  have  been  written  at  some 
time  in  1607,  and  might  thence  naturally  imply  that  he 
and  the  church  were  there  then.  The  first  fixed  point 
which  seems  to  be  determinable  at  Amsterdam  from 
which  to  measure  back  is  found  in  this  remark  by 
Smyth  [Cftaractcr  of  ilie  Beast,  etc.  71]:  "I  end 
writing  this  24  of  March,  1608."  But  his  Paralleles, 
etc.,  and  his  Diferences  (both  published  before  he  led 
his  church  into  a  new  baptism)  had  been  issued  before 
this,  with  time  cnoupli  afterward  to  allow  the  full 
development  of  that  new  theory  and  practice  of  adult 
baptism  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  Cftaractcr  of  the 
Beast,  etc.  to  explain  and  defend.  1  scarcely  see  how 
all  this  could  have  taken  place,  with  the  necessary  inter- 


vals of  time,  unless  the  company  had  reached  Amster- 
dam before  1607.  Prof.  Scheffer,  who  has  studied  the 
whole  subject  on  the  ground  with  masterly  skill,  puts 
the  arrival  in  the  autumn  of  1606.  [De  Browtiisten 
Te  Amsterdam,  etc  (iSSi)  p.  S5.]  "  Na  aldus  voor  de 
achterblijvenden  te  hebben  gezorgd,  besloot  Smyth  tot 
den  overtocht  en  kwam  te  Amsterdam  in  't  late  najaar, 
denkelijk  October  of  November  1606." 

■*  See  Congregationalism  of  last  Three  Hundred 
Years,  as  Seen  in  its  Literature,  etc.  255-311. 

'5  I  was  in  error  in  a  former  volume  [Congregation- 
alism, as  Seen,  etc.  312]  in  the  statement  adopted  too 
hastily  from  Brook  [ii:  ig6]  and  ^(ircA/y  [63,  6S]  that 
Smyth  and  his  people  first  joined  themselves  to  the 
church  of  Johnson  and  Ainsworth.  Subsequent  inves- 
tigation and  reflection  have  convinced  me  that  Smyth 
himself,  and  Gov.  Bradford,  arc  more  trustworthy 
witnesses.  The  language  of  the  latter  seems  almost 
necessarily  to  imply  the  coexistence  from  the  beginning 
of  the  two  churches,  thus : 

"  He  [Smyth]  was  some  time  pastor  to  a  company  of 
honest  and  godly  men  which  came  wiih  him  out  of 
England,  and  pitched  at  Amsterdam."  Ditilogue,  etc. 
in  Voting,  etc.  450. 

"  Seeing  how  Rlr.  John  Smith  and  his  companie  was 
allready  fallen  in  to  contention  with  ye  church  yt  was 
ther  before  them  .  .  .  and  also  tiiat  ye  flames  of  con- 
tention were  like  to  breake  out  in  y'  ancicnte  church  it 
selfe,  etc."     Hist.  Plini.  Plant.  16. 

Smyth  himself,  in  the  title-page  of  his  Diferences  of 
the  Churcltes  of  tlie  Seperation,  etc.  published  during 
the  year  of  Bradford's  residence  in  Amsterdam,  calls 
the  body  to  whom  he  ministered,  "  the  Brethren  of  the 
Seperation  of  the  Second  English  Church  at  Amster- 
dam;" while  I  think  Ainsworth's  language  [/I  «:'»«rt</- 
I'ersion,  etc.  137J  may  be  naturally  explained  without 
the  theor>'  that  when  .Smyth  "  proffered  writings,"  and 
Johnson  "withstood  and  refuted  that  course,"  they 
were  members  of  the  same  church. 


[3] 


It  may  be  well  to  pause  here  to  get,  if  we  may,  some  suo^gestive  glimpse  of 
the  kind  of  person  whose  life  we  are  investigating.  Clearly  he  was  an  impul- 
sive man,  with  something  magnetic  in  his  popular  sympathies  and  gifts  strongly 
attaching  his  friends  to  himself  ;'*  able  to  turn  his  hand  to  more  than  one 
thing/'* unselfish"  and  charitable;''  punctilious  and  courageous;  never 
asha'med  to  own  any  wrong  in  himself  which  he  discovered  ; '°  a  good  preacher, 
and  a  scholar  of  considerable  acquirements  ='  — having,  in  short,  many  of  the 
elements  of  a  great  and  good  man.  On  the  other  hand  his  mind  was  restless, 
and  perhaps  his  conscience  morbidly  sensitive  to  small  matters,  so  that  his 
extreme  defect  came  to  be  a  want  of  stability— not  of  purpose,  but  in  the 
relation  of  his  perceptions  and  volitions  to  the  data  on  which,  as  a  foundation, 
purposes  stand.  Gov.  Bradford,  no  doubt  as  truly  as  tersely  described  him  as 
to  this,  when  he  said:  "his  inconstancy,  and  unstable  judgment,  and  being  so 
suddenly  carried  away  with  things,  did  soon  overthrow  him."''  Robinson 
went  so  far  as  severely  to  blame  him  for  yielding  to  this  temperament :  "  for 
Mr.  Smyth,  his  instability  &  wantonnes  of  wit  is  his  syn,  &  our  crosse."  " 

It  would  appear  to  have  been  one  of  Mr.  Smyth's  latest  labors  in  the  north 
of  England,  or'  one  of  his  earliest  works  in  Amsterdam,'*  to  put  to  press  a 
small  tract  of  two  and  thirty  pages  entitled  Principles  and  Inferences  concerjiing 
the  visible  Church ;  which  in  style  is  dense  and  clear,  which  bristles  with  proof- 
texts  after  the  fashion  of  the  time,  and  which  in  sentiment  shows  him  at  the 
period  of  its  authorship  to  have  been  essentially  in  thorough  accord  with  the 


JO  Even  the  company  which  felt  itself  compelled  to 
the  extreme  course  of  excommunicating  him  for  theo- 
logical error,  said  of  him,  afterward: 

"  Lrt  no  man  think  that  we  could  not  willingly  have 
undergone  that  reproach,  and  far  preater,  to  have  still 
enioyed  him:  yea,  what  would  we  not  have  endured  or 
done  ;  would  we  not  have  lost  all  we  had,  yea,  would 
we  not  have  plucked  out  our  eyes;  would  we  not  have 
laid  down  our  lives?  Doth  :iot  God  know  this?  Do 
not  men  know  it?  Dolh  not  he  know  it?  Have  we 
not  nejilectcd  ourselves,  our  wives,  our  children  and  all 
we  had,  and  respected  him?  And  we  confess  we  had 
good  cause  so  to  do  in  respect  of  those  most  excellent 
gifts  and  graces  of  God  that  then  did  abound  in  hun; 
and  all  our  love  was  too  little  for  liim,  and  not  worthy 
of  him."  Declaration  p/  Faith  of  English  People, 
etc.  (Hclwys's  Company)  (i6ii)  14. 

"  "  After  a  certaine  time  (living  at  Amsterdam)  he 
began  to  practise  Physicke  (knowing  that  a  man  was 
bound  to  vse  tlie  gifts  that  the  lord  h.id  beslgwcd 
vppon  him  for  the  Good  of  others),  in  administring 
whereof,  he  vsuallv  tooke  nothing  of  the  poorer  sort: 
and  if  ihev  were  rich,  he  tooke  but  haife  so  much  as 
other  Doctors  did,  etc."  Declaration  0/  Faith  of 
English  People,  etc.  (Smyth's  Company)  (1612)42. 

"•'I  neuer  received  of  them  [his  church]  all  put 
toceihcr  the  value  of  fnrtie  shillings  to  my  knowledge, 
since  I  came  out  of  England."     Ibid.  40. 


10 "Moreover  he  was  so  mindefuU,  and  so  careful! 
for  the  poore:  that  he  would  rather  live  sparingly  in 
his  house  (or  as  we  say)  neglect  himself,  his  wife,  and 
children  then  that  anie  should  be  in  exiremitie.  Vppou 
a  lime  seeing  one  slenderly  apparelled,  he  sent  them 
his  gowne  to  make  them  clothes,  etc."     Jbid.  43. 

«>"In  this  writing  something  ther  is  which  over- 
whartelh  my  former  judgment  in  some  treaties  by  me 
formerly  published  :  Yet  I  would  intreat  the  reader  not 
to  impute  that  as  a  fault  unto  niee;  rather  it  should  be 
accounted  a  vertue  to  retract  errors.  Know  therfor 
that  latter  thouglits  oft  tvmes  are  better  then  the  for- 
mer, &  I  do  professe  this  (that  no  man  account  it 
straunge)  that  1  will  every  day  as  my  errors  shall  be 
discovered  confesse  them  &  renounce  them.  \DiJer- 
enccs  0/  the  Churches  0/  the  Separation,  etc.  ly.] 
"I  have  often  tvmes  beene  accused  of  inconstancie: 
well,  let  them  think  of  inee  as  they  please,  1  professe 
I  have  changed,  and  shallbc  readie  still  to  change  lor 
the  better."     Last  Booke  cf  John  Smith,  etc.  31. 

s'  '•  A  good  preacher,  and  of  other  good  parts." 
Bradford,  Dialogue,  etc.  45°- 

^  Ibid.  450. 

°  Ivstifuation  0/  Separation,  etc.  58. 

w  It  is  dated  1607,  and  in  type  and  ornament  it  a;> 
pears  to  resemble  some  other  issues  of  the  Amsterdam 
press  of  that  period. 


w 


Amsterdam  Separatists ;  with  possibly  a  slight  leaning  toward  the  Brownist, 
in  distinction  from  the  Barrowist,  theory  of  the  distribution  of  Church  power."' 
This  was  almost  immediately  followed  by  a  larger  work  —  designed  to  reply  to 
some  passages  of  Bernard  in  his  Separatists  Sc/iisme,  and  still  further  to  vindi- 
cate the  Congregational  way.  When  Mr,  Smyth  wrote  this  "*  he  was  no 
Baptist ;  for  again  and  again  in  its  pages  he  refers  to  them  in  terms  of  repro- 
bation." Nor  had  he  yet  obtained  those  new  views  on  other  points  which  were 
soon  to  cause  the  severance  of  fellowship  with  the  "ancient"  church,  and 
which  it  was  to  be  the  object  of  his  next  treatise  to  set  forth  and  establish. 
Down  to  this  date  he  heartily  accepted  the  ordinary  doctrines  of  the  Separat- 
ists;  maintaining  them  "to  be  the  vndoubted  truth  of  God;"  not  indeed 
repudiating  for  them  the  name  "  Brownisme,"  ^^  and  going  even  further  than 
in  his  previous  work  in  advocacy  of  the  practical  democracy  of  Brownism  over 
the  semi-Presbyterianism  of  the  Barrowism  which  then  prevailed."' 
It  must  have  been,  I  think,  early  in  1608,  that  this  persistent  rover 

"to  fresh  woods,  and  pastures  new" 

began  vigorously  to  persuade  his  church  that  hitherto  they  had  all  been  wrong 
on  one  vital  point,  as  to  which  reform  needed  to  be  immediate.  It  has  been 
usual  to  represent  that  the  movement  w-hich  now  took  place  was  a  secession 
from  the  "  ancient  "  church,  and  was  caused  by  the  adoption  of  new  views  as 


*" "  Election  is  by  most  voyces  of  the  members 
of  the  Church  in  ful  communion.  .  .  .  Ordination 
and  so  imposition  of  hands  apperteyneth  to  the  whole 
church,  as  doth  election  and  approbation,  yet  for  order 
sake  the  fittest  members  lay  on  hands  and  perform  al 
other  the  particulars  of  ordination  for  &  in  the  name 
of  the  whole  church."  Principles  and  Inferences, 
etc.  15,  17. 

^'^  Par  alleles,  Censvres,  Observations,  etc.  n.  pi.  4°. 
pp.  iii,  136,  xii.  The  title-page  says  "  Printed  1609." 
Its  type  does  not  resemble  that  of  other  Amsterdam 
issues  of  that  date  which  I  have  seen,  while  "The 
Printer  to  the  Reader"  on  the  last  page  may  naturally 
imply  that  it  was  not  issued  under  its  author's  eye. 
1  conjecture  therefore  —  not  without  some  corrobora- 
tion from  its  pages —  that  it  had  been  written  a  year  or 
two  previous,  circulated  in  MS.  and  then  came  into 
type  without  Mr.  Smyth's  immediate  volition,  and 
probably  at  a  time  when  it  no  longer  fairly  reflected 
his  views. 

*'  E.  g.  "  Do  you  think  that  God  accepteth  the  pray- 
ers &  Religious  exercises  of  the  Papists,  the  Arrians, 
the  A7iabaptists,  the  Familists,  or  atiy  other  hcretiques 
or  A  niichristians  ?"  [p.  13.]  "  Neither  can  a  wicked 
company  be  called  Holy  or  Saints  truly  in  respect  of 


the  visible  signes  of  Gods  favour  or  presence.  For 
then  the  Papists,  Anabaptists,  Famiiists,  Arrians,  & 
other  Heretiques  should  truly  be  caled  Saints,  seing 
they  have  the  word  &  Sacraments  among  them," 
etc.  etc.   [p.  35.] 

"^  Paralleles,  etc.  [135  ]  So  [109]  "  Von  say  wee  are 
not  to  bee  heard,  bicause  (as  Prownists)  wee  speake 
our  owne  fantasies,  &  visions  of  our  owne  harts,  and  are 
obstinate.  Wei  Mr.  Bern,  [ard]  I  say  no  more  for  this 
point,  but  this,  that  every  Godly  mynded  man  give  sen- 
tence whither  you  or  wee  have  the  truth." 

-""You  are  to  remcber  that  Christs  church  in  sev- 
eral respects  is  a  Monarchic,  an  Aristocraty,  a  Democ- 
ratie.  In  respect  of  Christ  the  King  it  is  a  Monarchy, 
of  the  Eldership  an  .Aristocratic,  of  the  brethren 
joyntly  a  Democratic  or  Popular  government.  .  .  wee 
say  therefore  that  the  body  of  the  Church  hath  all 
powre  immediately  from  Christ :  and  the  Elders  have 
al  their  powre  from  the  body  of  the  Church,  which 
powre  of  the  Eldership  is  not  exercized,  nor  can  not  be 
vsed  over  or  against  the  whole  body  of  the  Church,  for 
that  is  an  Antichristian  vsurpation.  .  .  Wee  say  that 
the  definitive  sentence,  the  determining  powre,  the 
negative  voice  is  in  the  body  of  the  Church,  not  in  the 
Elders,"  etc.  54,  55. 


[5] 


to  baptism  by  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  sympathizers.  In  a  former  volume  ^  I  was 
misled  as  to  the  first  point,  while,  as  to  the  second,  taking  pains  to  show  not 
only  that  the  moving  cause  had  no  reference  to  the  question  of  baptism,  but 
that  Smyth  himself  was  not  as  yet  a  Baptist.  Further  evidence  has  made  it 
clear  that  there  was  at  this  time  no  separation  from  the  first  church  on  the 
part  of  Smyth  and  his  friends,  and  no  forming  of  a  second  church  by  them  ; 
for  the  best  of  all  reasons  that  the  Gainsborough  company  had  never  become 
merged  in  the  "  ancient "  church,  but  had  been  a  second  church  by  themselves 
—  in  close  communion  with  the  first  —  from  their  arrival  in  Amsterdam. 
What  really  took  place  now  therefore  was  that  Smyth  led  his  second  church 
to  decline  all  further  communion  with  the  "ancient"  church  under  Johnson 
and  Ainsworth,  until  it  slioukl  renounce  and  forsake  that  "  mysterie  of  iniqui- 
tie  "  which  yet  remained  in  its  "worship  and  offices,"  wherein  "Antichrist  is 
not  utterlie  eyther  revealed  or  abolished,  but  in  a  verie  high  degree  exalted."'* 
As  it  is  a  matter  of  some  consequence  to  determine  exactly  what  the  issue 
between  them  at  this  date  was,  and  as  the  evidence  which  I  adduced  when 
treating  the  subject  two  years  ago  has  been  held  insufficient,'"  I  now  ask  my 
readers'  attention  to  two  or  three  further  witnesses  on  the  point.  And  in  the 
first  place  I  will  cite  Mr.  Ainsworth,  who,  writing  less  than  a  twelvemonth 
after,  on  the  spot,  thus  spake  concerning  it : '' 

Ther  was  one  onely  difference  betweene  M.  Smyth  and  us,  when  firft  he  began  to  quarrel; 
though  fynce  he  haue  increall  them,  and  increafeth  dayly,  with  deadly  feud  and  open  oppo- 
fition,  as  al  men  may  fee. 

That  difference  was  this.  He  with  his  followers  breaking  off  comunion  with  us,  charged 
us  with  fynn  for  ufmg  our  Englifli  Bibles  in  the  worfliip  of  God ;  &  he  thought  that  the 
teachers  should  bring  the  originals,  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  and  out  of  them  tranflate  by 
voice.  His  principal  reafon  againft  our  tranflated  fcripture  was  this.  No  Apocrypha 
writing  but  only  the  Canonical  fcriptures,  are  to  be  ufed  in  the  church  in  time  of  Gods  wor- 
fliip. Every  written  tranflation  is  an  Apocrypha  writing,  &  is  not  canonicall  fcripture. 
Therefore  every  written  tranflation  is  unlawful  in  the  church  in  time  of  Gods  worfliip.  Why 
he  counteth  every  tranflation  Apocrypha,  and  what  he  meant  thcrby,  appeareth  by  thefe 
words  of  his :  a  written  tranflation  (fayth  he),  or  interpretation,  is  as  wel  &  as  much  an 
humane  writing,  as  an  homilie  or  prayer,  written  &  read.  .  .  That  this  point  of  the  tranf- 
lation was  [at  first]  the  onely  difference,  as  it  is  known  to  al  that  then  heard  his  publik  protef- 


'"  Cottgr-egai ionalism  of  last  Three  Hundred  Years, 
etc  312. 

"  Dtferences  of  ChJ^s.  of  Separation,  etc.  i. 

^  I  refer  particularly  to  an  editorial  judgment  in  the 
Chicago  Standard  of  i  July,  1S80,  which  stigmatizes 
"the  points  named"  as  "trivial."  The  Exaynir.er 
and  Chronicle  of  19  -Aug.  iSSo,  also  said  of  my  con- 


clusion  that  it   "seems  to  be  based  on   partial    and 
incomplete  evidence." 

•■"  A  Defence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  JVorJJiip  and 
Mini/lcrie  ufed  in  the  Chrijlian  churches  ftparatcd 
front  Atitichrifl:  agaiiifl  the  clialtcnges,  cavils,  and 
contradiction  of  Mr.  Smyth.  Amsterdam,  1609.  [4'^. 
pp.  iv,  132.]    [B.  M.  (4103.  d.))  pp.  1-3- 


[6] 


J 


tatio;  fo  his  words  in  writing  fliew  it.  .  .  .  So  if  wee  would  have  layd  afidc  our  tranflated 
Bibles,  communion  (they  fay)  fliould  have  been  kept  with  us.  .  .  . 

After  much  time  fpent  about  this  controverfie,  he  manifefted  other  differences,  touching 
the  miniflerie  and  treafuric,  etc. 

Mr.  Bernard  also,  then  at  \Vork.sop  —  scarcely  more  than  twenty  miles,  as 
the  crow  flies,  from  Smyth's  old  Gainsborough  parish  —  and  who  had  known 
him  well,  after  sketching  previous  steps  in  his  career,  thus  refers  to  this  period, 
in  a  volume  written  within  two  years :  ^ 

Sixthly,  ,  .  hee  holdcth  for  truths  what  Mr.  Ainfworth  in  his  Anfwer  to  me  rejectcth 
for  errors :  Hee  iudgeth  their  worfliip  in  part  ludaifme,  their  Minifterie  and  Gouernment 
Anti-Chriflian;  of  which  hee  hath  alio  jjublidicd  a  Looke,  etc. 

About  the  same  time  Richard  Clyfton,  who  had  been  the  Teacher  of  the 
church  of  which  John  Robinson  was  pastor  and  William  Brewster  elder,  pub- 
lished a  little  quarto  at  Amsterdam,  where  he  was  a  co-resident  with  Smyth 
during  the  events  now  passing  under  review,  in  which  he  states  the  cause  of 
the  change  which  took  place  in  the  second  church  to  be  :  ^' 

Firft,  calling  into  queflion,  whether  the  fcriptures  being  tranflated  into  other  tongues,  were 
not  the  writings  of  men.  Then  cafling  the  reading  of  them  out  of  the  worfliip  of  God,  affirm- 
ing that  there  is  no  better  warrant  to  bring  tranflations  of  Scripture  into  the  Church,  and  to 
read  them  as  parts  and  helps  of  worfliip,  then  to  bring  in  expofitions,  paraphrafls  and  fer- 
mons  vpon  the  Scripture,  feing  all  thefe  arc  equally  humane  in  refpect  of  the  worke,  equally 
divine  in  refpect  of  the  matter  they  handle.  And  for  the  fame  caufe  feparated  thcmfelves 
from  other  Churches  \i.e.  the  "ancient"  church  of  Johnson  and  Ainsworth,  and  the  Scrooby- 
Leyden  church  under  Robinson]  that  did  read  and  vfe  the  fame  in  their  publike  meetings. 

We  may  now  in  the  light  of  these  corroborative  testimonies^*  profitably 
examine  the  statement  of  reasons  which  Smyth  himself  gave,  at  the  time,  in 
the  volume  which  he  then  published  in  justification  of  the  action  taken  by 


**  Plaine  Eiiidences :  The  Church  of  England  is 
Apojlolicall;  the  Scfiaration  fchismaticalt,  directed 
agaiiijl  Mr.  Ainfworth  the  Separatist,  and  Mr. 
Smyth  tlie  fe-bafiiist,  etc.  i6io.  [4°.  pp.  xvi,  340.] 
[B.  M   (4135   a)]  p.  19. 

*•"  The  Plea  for  Infants  and  Elder  People^  concern- 
ing tlieir  Baptifmc.  Or  a  Proceffc  of  the  Paffages 
between  Mr.  John  Smyth  and  Richard  Clyfton,  etc. 
Amsterdam,  1610.  [4°.  pp.  xx,  22S.]  [B.  M.  (4323.  b.)l 
p.  V. 

''"Add  to  them  the  following  from  Robert  Baylie's 
Diffvafive  From  the  Errours  of  the  Time,  etc. 
[p.  i6J : 

There  he  [Smyth!  perfevered  not  long  in  concord 
with  his  Elder  Brethren  of  the  Separation,  but  quickly 


accufed  them  all  of  Idolatry  in  their  wnrfhip,  for 
looking  upon  their  Bibles  in  the  time  of  Prenching, 
and  on  their  Pfalters  in  the  time  of  fmging;  and  of 
Antichriftinnifm  in  their  Government,  becaiife  in  their 
Prcfbytery  they  joyned  to  P.illnrs  other  two  Officers, 
Doctours  and  ruling  Elders,  which  to  him  were  humane 
inventions. 

And  this  from  a  careful  writer  on  the  ground,  within 
a  generation  fjohn  Hoornbeek,  Sumina  Controverfi- 
arnin  Religionis,  etc.  (1653)  740]: 

Sed  cum  aiiliquioribus  ejufdem  fectae  fiHe,  Smyth^l 
non  diu  concor.s,  quos  idololalriae  accufabat,  quod 
turn  in  concione  ad  volumen  liiblioriim,  turn  inler  can- 
tandum,  Psalterium  relpicerent,  eli.Tm  Anlichriftian- 
ifmi  in  regimine  Ecclefiae.quod  Palloribns  adjungerent 
alios  Doctores,  &  Kcciores,  quae  humani  cummcnti 
dicebat  .  ,  ,  deficit,  etc. 


[7] 


himself  and  his  people.  And  as,  on  a  former  occasion,  it  has  been  intimated 
that  it  is  "very  much  a  question"  whether  Smyth  and  his  company  would 
recognize  my  statement  of  their  grounds  of  action  "as  correct  and  adequate,"" 
I  beg  the  reader  particularly  to  observe,  first,  that  I  give  that  statement  in 
Smyth's  020/1  language,  evqn  to  the  minutest  jot  and  tittle  of  his  spelling;  and, 
second,  that  it  is  the  /////  summary  which  he  himself  drew  up  of  the  entire 
case  which  his  book  was  designed  to  argue.     It  is  as  follows  :  ^* 

Our  differences  from  the  auncyent  brethren  of  the  Seperation : 

1.  Wee  hould  that  the  worfliip  of  the  new  tcftament  properly  fo  called  is  fpiritualj,  pro- 
ceeding originally  from  the  hart :  &  that  reading  out  of  a  booke  (though  a  lawfull  ecclcfiallical 
action)  is  no  part  of  fpirituall  worfliip,  but  rather  the  invention  of  the  man  of  fynne,  it  being 
fubftituted  for  a  part  of  fpirituall  worfliip. 

2.  Wee  hould  that  feeing  prophefiing  is  a  parte  of  fpiritual  worfliip :  therefore  in  time  of 
prophefijng  it  is  vnlawfull  to  have  the  booke  as  a  helpe  before  the  eye. 

3.  wee  hould  that  feeing  finging  a  pfalme  is  a  part  of  fpirituall  worfliip,  therefore  it  is 
vnlawfull  to  have  the  booke  before  the  eye  in  time  of  finginge  a  psalme. 

4.  wee  hould  that  the  Prefbytery  of  the  church  is  vniforme  :  &  that  the  triformed  Pref- 
byterie  confifting  of  three  kinds  of  Elders,  viz.  Paflors,  Teachers,  Rulers,  is  none  of  Gods 
Ordinance  but  mans  devise.  39 

5.  wee  hold  that  all  the  Elders  of  the  Church  are  Paflors :  and  that  lay  Elders  (fo  called) 
are  Antichriflian. 

6.  wee  hold  that  in  contributing  to  the  Church  Treafurie,  their  ought  to  bee  both  a  fep- 
aration  from  them  that  are  without,  &  a  fanctification  of  the  whole  action  by  Prayer  & 
Thankefgiuing. 

There  is  absolutely  no  solitary  coeval  witness  to  modify  the  drift  of  this 
testimony;  apparently  the  first  writer  who  alleges  that  anything  other  than 
this  came  in  as  an  element,  having  written  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  after, 
and  at  the  time  freely  confessed  the  inadequacy  of  his  acquaintance  with  the 


"  I  refer  to  the  editorial  of  the  Chicago  Standard ai 
I  July,  18S0.  Tlie  New  York  Examiner  and  Chroni- 
cle of  19  Aug.  1S80,  fell  into  the  same  vein,  saying; 
"  Other  questions  are  known  to  have  been  involved  in 
producing  the  separation;  but  they  do  not  exclude  the 
cliange  to  Baptist  views,  which  lias  been  declared  with 
preat  unanimity  to  be  the  primary  cause."  To  which  I 
now  reply:  (i)  that  the  fact  that  the  complete  state- 
ment about  to  be  given  from  Smyth's  own  pen  makes 
no  reference  to  any  "  Baptist  views"  does  necessarily 
"exclude"  them;  and  (2)  that  neither  Smyth,  nor  his 
people,  had  any  "  Baptist  views,"  at  the  date  when  the 
event  now  under  consideration  took  place. 

"*  The  Di/crences  0/  tlie  Churches  of  the  fepera- 
tion.  Contnyniiig  A  de/cription  of  tlie  Leitovrgie 
and  Minister ie  of  the  vifible  Church  Annexed:  .  .  . 
Pudli/lied,  for  tlu  Satif/actioti  of  every  true  lover  of 


tJie  truth,  efpecially  the  Brethren  of  the  Seperation 
that  are  doubtfuU.  2.  As  alfo  for  the  removing  of 
an  Vnjujl  Calumnie  cajl  vppon  the  Brethren  of  the 
Seperation  of  the  fccond  Engliflt  Church  at  Amfter- 
dam.  3.  Finally  for  the  clearing  of  the  truth,  Gf 
the  difcovering  of  the  myjlcrie  of  iniguitie  yet  fur- 
ther in  the  ■worjiiifi  A'  ojffices  of  the  Church.  Di- 
vided into  two  parts:  (1)  Concerning  the  Leitourgie 
of  the  Church;  (2)  Concerning  ilie  Minijlerie  of  the 
Church.  One  of  the  Eldership.  Another  of  t lit 
Deacons  office  whereto  aperteineth  the  Treafury,  etc. 
by  John  Sniylh.  [n.  pl.l  [n.  d.]  [1609.]  [4°.  pp.  iv,  36.] 
[Bodleian.  (Pamph.  6.)]  p.  v. 

2"  Here,  and  in  the  following  head  (5),  the  divergence 
of  Mr.  Smyth  from  Barrowism  in  the  direction  of 
Brownism,  is  inore  marked  than  in  previous  cases  to 
which  reference  has  been  made. 


[8] 


facts/"  In  the  face  of  all  this,  to  contuiue  to  affirm  that  the  subject  of  baptism 
had  anything  to  do  with  that  cessation  of  communion  between  the  first  and 
second  churches  which  took  place  in  1608,  is  not  only  to  substitute  the  single 
unsupported  conjecture  of  the  fourth  generation  after  for  the  uniform  testimony 
of  the  time,  but  is  to  be  wiser  than  that  which  was  vvritten  by  the  man  himself 
and  his  contemporaries.  To  sum  all  up  into  a  single  sentence,  as  Henry 
Ainsworth  did,  in  1613,  this  conflict,  with  its  consequent  cessation  of  fraternity, 
was  caused  by  "  M.  Smyth  in  deed  leaving  the  truth,  and  broaching  his  herefie 
againft  the  tranflated  Icripture.""" 

Not  many  months  elapsed,  however,  before  the  active  mind  of  this  intrepid 
man  did  evolve  that  new  view  in  regard  to  the  ordinance  above  referred  to, 
which,  with  its  consequences,  has  made  his  name  especially  memorable ;  and 
the  exact  truth  in  regard  to  which  I  am  now  especially  concerned  to  establish. 
We  may  perhaps  most  wisely  reach  the  material  of  a  sound  conclusion  as  to 
the  case  in  all  its  aspects,  by  answering  the  following  three  questions,  viz. : 
When  did  this  change  of  conviction  take  place  ?  What  were  the  modes  of 
baptism  then  prevalent,  and  which  of  them  did  Smyth  and  his  company  prob- 
ably make  use  oi?  and  Did  Mr.  Smyth  first  rebaptize  himself,  and  then  admin- 
ister the  ordinance  to  his  associates  ? 

I,  JV/ien  did  this  change  of  conviction  take  place!  We  have  already  traced 
the  history  to  the  adoption  by  Mr.  Smyth  and  apparently  by  the  great  body  of 
his  people,  of  those  views  which  led  to  a  cessation  of  fellowship  with  the 
"ancient"  church;  with  the  publication  of  the  treatise  intended  to  explain  and 
justify  that  course  —  all  of  which  seems  to  have  taken  place  in  the  late  spring 
or  early  summer  of  1608;*^  and  we  have  discovered  down  to  this  time  no 
symptom  of  special  interest  in  the  subject  of  baptism,  or  of  dissatisfaction  on 
his  part  with  his  life-long  position  respecting  it.     But  inertia  once  overcome, 


*''>  Crosby  Un^Yw  92. 

*'^  An  Aniinadverfion  to  Mr.  Richard  Cly/totts 
Advertifejnent,  etc.  Amsterdam,  1613.  [4°.  pp.  viii, 
13S.J    [13.  M.  (4103.  d.)]p.  108. 

<-The  difiBcully  of  exactly  determining  the  period  in 
question  is  increased  by  the  looseness  with  which  books 
were  sometimes  dated  in  those  days.  Of  course  the 
I'aralleUs,  etc.  must  have  been  sent  to  press  while 
Mr.  Smyth  was  still  a  Brownist,  and  before  the  arising 
of  any  difficulty  between  the  "ancient"  and  second 
churches,  yet  its  title-page  bears  clearly  the  imprint  of 
"  1609."  On  the  other  hand  the  preface  of  T/ie  Char- 
acter 0/  the  Beast,  etc.  written  a/ter  the  full  develop- 
ment of  the  Baptist  change,  concludes:  "  I  end  writing 
this  24  of  March,  1608";  while  the  Diferences,  etc., 
which  bears  no  date,  must  have  beeu  published  be- 


tween them.  After  considerable  thought  I  harmonize 
all  by  the  theory  that  the  ParalUlcs  was  sent  to 
press  early  in  1608,  but  was  —  as  1  have  noticed  to  be 
the  fact  in  some  other  cases  —  wrongly  dated;  and  that 
the  24th  March  1608  is  old  style,  which  would  make  it 
the  last  day  of  that  year,  but  by  modern  computation 
24  Mar.  |/.  e.  the  ^sdday  of  J  I'xji).  Thus  (especially  as 
months  very  likely  elapsed  after  ihe  dating  of  the  preface 
of  Tlie  Character,  etc.  before  its  issue  from  the  press) 
lime  enough  is  afforded  for  the  entire  succession  of 
events;  assigning  the  non-communion  excitement,  with 
the  Diferences,  etc.  to  the  late  spring  or  early  summer, 
and  the  change  of  view  on  Baptism  to  the  autumn  or 
winter  of  160S,  followed  by  the  Character  of  the 
Beast,  etc.  in  the  summer  or  fall  of  i6og.  Clearly  no 
great  amount  of  time  was  lost,  in  any  case. 


[9] 

progress  becomes  less  difficult,  and  no  doubt  the  sharp  discussion  wliich  arose, 
on  the  one  hand  incHned  these  radicals  to  be  hospitable  toward  further  views 
which  had  always  been  under  the  ban  of  their  former  associates  ;  and  on  the 
other,  invited  toward  them  the  attention  and  persuasion  of  kindred  minds 
which  had  already  made  wider  departure  from  the  Orthodoxy  of  the  day. 
There  were  many  Anabaptists  —  as  they  were  then  uniformly  called  —  in 
Amsterdam  ;  and  it  is  very  likely,  though  I  do  not  know  that  the  conjecture 
can  be  authenticated  by  evidence,  that  Hans  de  Ries  or  Lubbert  Gerrits,  or 
some  other  of  these,  with  whom  Smyth  and  his  people  were  subsequently 
affiliated,  may  at  this  time  have  approached  to  leaven  him  with  their  peculiar 
views.  Bradford  indeed  says  "he  was  drawn  away  by  some  of  the  Dutch  Ana- 
baptists."'•^  No  long  period,  clearly,  elapsed  before,  wath  or  without  their  aid, 
Mr.  Smyth  was  led  to  renounce  his  infant  consecration,  and  to  reconstruct  his 
church  upon  the  basis  of  a  new  adult  baptism.  This  seems  to  have  been  fully 
accomplished  during  the  closing  months  of  1608,  being  the  first  three  months 
of  1609,  by  new  style.  But  what  I  am  chiefly  anxious  to  do  here  is  still  fur- 
ther to  make  clear  the  fact  that  there  was  a  distinct  interval  of  time  between 
it  and  the  previous  controversy  which  had  called  out  the  Diferences  of  the 
Churches  of  the  Separation.  Of  this  there  remain  at  least  six  witnesses,  as 
follows,  viz. : 

(i.)  Richard  Clyf  ton,  having  referred  to  the  controversy  about  the  Scriptures 
with  its  subsequent  separation,  goes  on  to  say : "" 

After  this,  they  diffolved  their  Church  (which  before  was  coniojTied  in  the  fellowfliip  of  the 
Gofpel  &  profeflion  of  the  true  fayth)  &  Mr.  Smyth  being  Paftor  thereof,  gave  over  his  office, 
as  did  alfo  the  Deacons,  and  devifed  to  enter  a  new  communion  by  renouncing  their  former 
baptifme,  and  taking  upon  them  another,  of  mans  invention,  etc. 

(2.)  Henry  Ainsworth,  after  having  dwelt  at  great  length  upon  the  cessation 
of  fellowship  and  its  causes,  proceeds :  *' 

Soon  after  this  God  flroke  him  [Mr.  Smyth]  with  blindnes,  that  he  could  no  longer  find  the 
door  of  the  Church  out  of  which  he  was  gone  by  fchifme,  and  which  he  had  aflaulted  with 
error  .  .  .  And  now  as  a  man  benummed  in  mynd,  he  cryeth  out  againft  us,  contrary  to  his 
former  fayth  and  confefllon :  Loe  [Characti-r  of  the  Beast,  etc.  (Epistle)]  we  prottfi  against 
them  (fayth  he)  to  bee  a  falfe  Church,  falfely  conjlitutcd  in  the  baptifing  of  infants,  and  their  own 
unbaptifed  eflate,  etc. 

(3.)  Governor  Bradford  speaks  distinctly  to  the  same  effect  where  he  says  :** 

He  first  fell  into  some  errors  about  the  Scriptures,  and  so  into  some  opposition  with  Mr. 


*^  Diaiog-tu,  etc.  in  Young,  451. 
**  Flea/or  Infants,  etc  v. 


*^  Defence,  etc.  3. 

*''  Dialogue,  etc.  in  Young,  450, 


[lo] 


Johnson  .  .  .  and  the  church  there  .  .  .  but  after-.uards  was   drawn   away  by  some   of  the 
Dutch  Anabaptists,  etc 

('4.)  Richard  Bernard,  after  tracing  in  six  steps  Mr.  Smyth's  progress  from 
the  Establishment  through  Brownism,  the  sixth  of  which  was  his  separation  on 
the  question  of  the  Scriptures,  goes  on  :''' 

Seauentkly,  and  laftly,  if  it  prove  the  Lift,  He  hath  founded  a  new  Church,  hcc  hath  (if  you 
will  bclecue  him)  recoucrcd  the  true  Baptifmc,  and  the  true  matter  and  forme  of  a  true 
Church,  which  now  is  onely  to  be  found  pure  among  a  company  of  Sc-baptijls,  etc. 

(5.)  The  author  of  Ancient  Truth  Revived  .  .  .  or  a  trice  State  of  the  anticnt 
Suffering  Church  of  Chrifl  commonly  (but  falfcly)  called  Brownijls,  etc.,  after 
making  mention  of  the  severance  of  Smyth  and  his  friends  from  the  fellowship 
of  the  "ancient"  church,  adds  i*^ 

Soon  after  Satan  drew  him  to  deny  the  Covenant  preached  to  Abraham  to  be  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,  which  led  him  to  deny  his  Baptifm  received  in  Infancy,  etc. 

(6.)  Mr.  Smyth  himself  testifies  clearly  on  this  point.  Not  having  said  one 
word  about  Baptism  in  his  Diferences,  in  1608,  in  his  Character  of  the  Beast,  etc. 
"Printed  1609,"  he  undertakes  to  meet  the  objection  made  against  him  of 
inconstancy  in  religion  ;  thus  :  "^ 

to  chandge  a  falfe  Religion  is  commendable  &  to  retaine  a  falfe  Religion  is  damnable.  For 
a  man  of  a  Turk  to  become  a  lew,  of  a  lew  to  become  a  Papifl:,  of  a  Papifl  to  become  a 
Proteftant  are  al  commendable  chandges,  though  they  al  of  them  befal  one  &  the  fame  perfon 
in  one  yeere,  nay,  if  it  were  in  one  month  :  So  that  not  to  chandg  Religion  is  evil  fimply  :  & 
thcrfor  that  we  fliould  fal  from  the  profeffion  of  Puritanifme  to  Pirownifme,  &  from  Brown- 
ifme  to  true  Chriilian  baptifme,  is  not  fimply  evil  or  reprovable  in  it  self,  except  it  be  proved 
that  we  have  fallen  from  true  religion:  If  wee  therfor  being  formerly  deceaved  in  the  way  of 
Pedobaptiftry,  now  doe  embrace  the  truth  in  the  true  Chriflian  Apoftolique  baptifme :  then 
let  no  man  impute  this  as  a  fault  vnto  vs. 

There  being  no  suggestion  of  evidence,  or  even  opinion,  on  the  other  side 
until  more  than  one  hundred  years  after,  we  may,  in  the  light  of  these  declara- 
tions, safely  conclude  that  it  was  at  some  time  in  1608,  several  months  subsequent 
to  the  cessation  of  communion  between  the  two  churches,  that  Mr.  Smyth  led 
his  flock  forward  to  a  dissolution  of  their  old  covenant,  with  reorganization  on 
the  basis  of  a  new  baptism. 

2.  What  modes  of  Baptism  were  then  prevalent,  and  which  mode  did  Smyth 
and  his  company,  in  all  likelihood,  make  use  oft  This  inquiry  becomes  the  more 
needful  from  the  very  general  assumption  that  at  that  time  there,  as  at  present 


^"  Plaine  Euidftices,  etc.  19. 
«8[B.  M.  (105.  c.  49-)]p-36- 


<9  Bodleian,  (Pnmph.  7)  p.  iii.      This  book  is  not  in 
the  B.  M.  libiary. 


[■■] 


among  us,  the  two  methods  of  sprinkling  and  of  immersion  alone  prevailed ; 
^vith  the  result  that  all  descriptive  and  other  language  which  it  would  hardly  be 
natural  to  apply  to  the  former,  has  been  takpn  as  of  course  implying  the  latter.'" 
It  will  be  further  well  if  we  can  obtain  the  means  of  determining  whether  the 
statement  often  made  that  infant  baptism  at  this  time  in  England  was  uniformly 
administered  by  immersion,  with  the  inference  that  therefore  the  adoption  of 
that  form  by  the  Baptists  for  adults  would  not  be  likely  to  call  forth  special 
remark,^'  stands  upon  any  sufficient  basis  of  fact. 

It  is  conceded,  even  by  those  who  are  most  earnest  in  the  claim  that  immer- 
sion was  the  earliest  form  of  administering  Christian  baptism,  that  it  was  soon 
dispensed  with  in  exceptional  cases;'"  while  it  is  matter  of  undoubted  history 
that  within  little  more  than  one  hundred  years  subsequent  to  the  death  of  the 
last  of 'the  Apostles,  Novatian,  being  sick,  "was  baptized  by  affusion  in  the  bed 
on  which  he  lay;""  and  that,  soon  after,  the  frequency  of  like  cases  led 
Magnus  to  put  to  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  the  question  whether  such 
procedure  were  valid.     We  have  the  very  words  of  his  reply:'* 


Quaesisti  etiam,  lili  carissimc,  quid  mihi  de 
illis  videatur,  qui  in  infirmitate  et  languore 
gratiam  Dei  consequuntur,  an  habendi  sint 
legitimi  christiani  eo,  quod  aqua  salutari  non 
loti  sint,  sed  perfusi. 

.  ,  .  Nos  quantum  concipit  mediocritas 
nostra  aestimamus,  in  nullo  mutilari  et  debil- 
itari  posse  bcneficia  divina,  nee  minus  aliquid 
illic  posse  contingere,  ubi  plena  ct  tola  fide  et 
dantis  et  sumentis  accipitur,  quod  de  divinis 
muneribus  hauritur. 

[Then,  after  citing  Ezek.  xxxvi:  25,  26; 
Numbers  xix  :  8,  12,  13;  viii :  5-7  and  xix  :  9, 


You  have  asked  also,  dearest  son,  what  I 
thought  of  those  who  obtain  God's  grace  in 
sickness  and  weakness ;  whether  they  are  to 
be  accounted  legitimate  Christians,  for  that 
they  are  not  washed,  but  sprinkled,  with  the 
saving  water. 

.  .  .  As  far  as  my  poor  understanding  con- 
ceives it,  I  think  that  the  divine  benefits  can 
in  no  respect  be  mutilated  and  weakened ;  nor 
can  anything  less  occur  in  that  case,  where, 
with  full  and  entire  faith  both  of  the  giver 
and  receiver,  is  accepted  what  is  drawn  from 
the  divine  gifts. 


M  E.  g.  "  The  definition  of  baptism  in  Helwys's 
Confession,  published  in  161 1,  viz.:  '"washing  with 
water,'  instead  of  pioving  affusion,  we  think  very  good 
Baptist  [/  e.  immersionist]  testimony."  Examiner  and 
Chronicle,  19  Aug.  iSSo.  See  also  a  learned  article  by 
Dr.  Heman  Lincoln,  Prof,  of  Eccl.  Hist,  at  Newton 
Theo.  Sem.  in  the  Watchman  and  Reflector,  14  Oct. 
18S0. 

i^' So  well  informed  a  man  as  Dr.  Evans  —  who  seems 
to  have  been  almost  alone  among  his  English  Kaptist 
brethren  of  this  generation  in  taking  much  pains  to  get 
at  the  T&-3\  facts  of  the  early  history  of  the  Baptists  in 
that  country  —  says  \Early  English  Baptists,  etc. 
i :  203  notc'\ :  "The  all  but  universal  practice  of  immer- 
sion  in   the   English  Church  rendered  the  discussion 


of  the  mode  unnecessary.''  It  is  curious  —  I  may 
as  well  add  here  as  anywhere  —  to  observe  with  what 
sang-froid  this  writer  now  and  again  refers  in  his 
notes  to  books  which  he  was  aware  advocated  views 
lying  athwart  other  views  to  which  he  refers,  as  works 
which  "we  have  not  seen;"  when  he  must  have 
known  that  a  few  shillings,  and  a  little  trouble,  would 
take  him  to  the  British  Museum,  or  the  Bodleian,  or 
to  York  Minster,  where  he  could  hardly  fail  to  "  see" 
Ihem. 

^  Vide  Taylor's  General  Baptists,  etc.  1 :  61. 

""ti^  avTij  TT)  K/Jvi)  7/  tKetTu  Trepixvdetc" 
Letter  of  Cornelius  to  Fabius.  Eusebius,  Eccl.  Hist. 
VI:  xliii. 

^Epistola  LXIX.  [Tauchnitz  ed.]  193. 


[.2] 


he  goes  on] :  uncle  apparet,  adspersionem 
quoque  aquae  instar  salutaris  lavacri  obtin- 
erc,  ct  quando  hacc  in  ccclesia  fiunt,  ubi  sit 
ct  accipientis  ct  dantis  fides  integra,  stare 
omnia  et  consummari  ac  perfici  posse  maies- 
tate  Domini  et  fidci  vcritatc. 


Whence  it  appears  that  the  sprinkling  also 
of  water  prevails  equally  with  the  washing  of 
salvation;  and  that  when  this  is  done  in  the 
church,  where  the  faith  both  of  receiver  and 
giver  is  sound,  all  things  hold  and  may  be 
consummated  and  perfected  by  the  majesty  of 
the  Lord,  and  by  the  truth  of  faith. 


By  the  fifth  century  there  is  evidence  that  in  France  affusion  had  come  into 
at  least  occasional  use  as  the  mode  of  baptism  for  persons  in  health."  In  the 
twelfth  century  sprinkling,  pouring  and  immersion  coexisted  in  Italy;'*  and,  in 
1311,  Clement  V.  sanctioned  the  action  of  the  second  Council  of  Ravenna 
making  ["  sub  trina  aspersione  vel  immersione "]  sprinkling  or  immersion 
optional."  In  England  a  Roman  Catholic  historian  judges  that  while  the 
Anglo-Saxon  Church  enjoined  immersion  for  infants,  in  the  case  of  adults  it 
was  accustomed  to  administer  "by  affusion  upon  the  liead."  '*  In  the  fifteenth 
century  Lyndewood  says  that,  where  the  child  is  not  strong  enough  to  be 
immersed,  or  the  priest  is  too  feeble  to  immerse  it,  baptism  may  be  properly 
done  ["per  modum  effusionis  vel  aspersionis "]  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. '' 
The  first  Prayer-Book  of  the  Reformation  —  that  of  Edward  VI.  of  1549  — 
ordained:  "first  dypping  the  ryghtsyde :  Seconde  the  left  syde :  The  thyrde 
tyme  dippyng  the  face  towarde  the  fonte  :  So  it  be  discretly  and  warely  done," 
but  it  is  added  :  "if  the  childe  be  weake,  it  shall  suffice  to  poure  water  vpdn  it, 
etc."^  This  was  modified  in  the  second  book  of  Edward  VI.  of  1552,  by 
leaving  out  the  trine  immersion,  but  retaining  the  same  provision  in  the  case  of 
danger  of  harm  from  even  the  single  dipping.''' 

In  1536  Calvin  published  at  Basle  the  first  edition  of  h\s  Institutes  of  the 
Christian  Religion^  in  which  on  this  subject  he  said  :*" 


^  Gcnnadius  of  Marseilles  says  the  candidate  for 
baptism  is  "either  wetted  with  the  water,  or  else 
plutiged  into  it."  De  Eccl.  Dogmatibus,  etc.  c.  74,  as 
cited  by  U'all,\\:  357. 

^  Thomas  Aquinas,  [Q.  Ixvi.  Art.  7]  as  cited  by 
PVall,  ii :  357.  So  Bunsen  says  {Hyfifiolytus  and  his 
Age,  etc.  (1854)  ii :  121]  "The  Western  Church  evi- 
dently commenced  her  career,  under  the  guidance  of 
Rome,  with  more  freedom  of  thought.  She  abolished, 
together  with  adult  baptism,  its  symbol,  immersion,  and 
introduced  sprinkling  in  its  stead." 

'•T  Labbc,  R.  XI. 

M  Very  Rev.  Canon  Flanagan,  History  o/the  Church 
in  Eng.,  etc.  i:   178. 

^^  Provincialc,  etc.  242.  There  is  a  curious  passage 
in  Tyndali's    Obedience   0/  a    Christian  Man,    etc. 


(152S)  which  refers  to  this  exceptional  practice,  where 
he  is  rebuking  the  spiritual  ignorance  of  the  common 
people  {.Doctrinal  Treatises,  (Parker  Soc.  ed.   1848,) 

277]: 

Behold  how  narrowly  the  people  look  on  the  cere- 
mony. If  aught  be  left  out,  or  if  the  child  be  not  alto- 
gether dipt  in  the  water;  or  if,  because  the  child  is 
sick,  the  priest  dare  not  plunge  him  into  the  water,  but 
pour  water  on  his  head,  how  tremble  they!  how  quake 
they!  "'How  say  ye,  Sir  John"  (sav  they)  "is  this 
child  christened  enough?  Hath  it  Ins  full  Christen- 
dom?" They  believe  verily  that  the  child  is  not 
christened. 

"*  Signature  X.  2  (iii). 

'^  hiftitutio  Chrijlianae  Religiouis,  etc  Lib.  IV. 
cap.  XV,  sees.  19,  20. 


[■3] 


Caeterum  mergatur  ne  totus  qui  tingitur, 
iclque  tcr  an  femel,  an  infufa  tantum  aqua 
afpergatur,  minimum  rcfcrt :  fed  id  pro  rc- 
gionum  diucrfitatc  Ecclefiis  liberum  cffe  de- 
bet .  .  .  Vbi  inualuit  opinio,  perditos  cffe 
omnes  quibus  aqua  tingi  non  contigit,  noftra 
conditio  deterior  eft  cpiam  vctcris  populi,  qua 
G.  reftrictior  effet  Dei  gratia  quam  fub  Lege. 


Whether  the  person  baptized  is  to  be  wholly 
immersed,  and  that  whether  once  or  thrice,  or 
whether  he  is  only  to  be  sprinkled  with  water, 
is  not  of  the  least  consequence :  churches 
should  be  at  liberty  to  adopt  either  according 
to  the  diversity  of  climates  .  .  .  When  the 
opinion  prevails  that  all  are  lost  who  happen 
not  to  be  dipped  in  water,  our  condition  be- 
comes worse  than  that  of  God's  ancient 
people ;  as  if  His  grace  %vere  more  restrained 
than  under  the  Law. 


Under  the  rubric  as  it  stood  (and  indeed  still  stands)  two  causes  during 
Elizabeth's  reign  have  been  supposed  to  have  swayed  the  flexible  practice  of 
the  English  Church  froin  immersion  toward  sprinkling.  One,  the  strong  pref- 
erence often  had  by  parents  —  especially  of  that  wealthier  and  more  cultured 
class  which  so  much  sets  the  fashion  for  the  humbler  sort  —  for  sprinkling,  or 
pouring,  over  dipping,  because  they  enjoyed  neither  the  stripping  their  children 
naked  of  the  fine  garments  prepared  for  their  christening,  nor  the  affrighted 
screams  with  which  the  little  ones  were  apt  to  receive  immersion  ;"  the  other, 
the  fact  that  when  those  English  divines  who  during  bloody  Mary's  reign  had 
taken  shelter  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  came  back,  they  brought  with  them 
as  to  this  subject  a  preference  for  Calvin's  more  liberal  theory  and  practice.^ 
In  the  second  year  of  Elizabeth,  we  find  Thomas  Becon  adding  his  influence  to 
the  movement,  thus  :  *^ 

Chrifl  commanded  to  baptize  all  men;  but  he  left  the  manner  of  baptizing  free  to  his 
Church,  whether  they  would  wafli  the  whole  body,  or  feme  part  thereof.  Moreover,  as  all  the 
people  of  the  Jews  was  counted  to  be  fprinkled  with  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  becaufe  it  was 
accuftomed  to  be  fprinkled  upon  all,  when  notwithllanding  not  their  whole  bodies,  but  fome 
part  of  them  was  imbrued  with  the  blood;  fo  likewife  a  man  or  an  infant  is  taken  to  be  wholly 
baptized,  dipped  and  clcanfed,  when  fome  one  member  only  is  overflowed  with  water,  dipped 
or  cleanfed.     For  this  lawifh^s  fprinkling  was  a  figure  of  the  blood  of  Chrilt,  wherewith  the 


«  Vide  W'a//,  ii :  365. 

*•  Calvin's  own  practice  was  pouring.  His  Genevan 
Liturgy  [Citteckismus  Genevensis,  etc.  (Niemeyer's 
CoUectio  Con/cssionum,  etc.  iS^o),  1S3]  prescribes  the 
form  fo  be :  [Turn  in  eum  nquam  Uaplifmi  minifter 
effundit,  inquicns,  etc.]  "Then  the  minister  pours 
water  on  ike  infant,  sayinp;,  etc."  About  the  same 
time  we  find  Bulliniier,  at  Zurich,  using  such  language 
as  the  following  {Fi/tic  Godlie  and  Learned  Sermons, 
etc.  (ed.  1587)  p.  1040],  viz.: 

There  is  contention  alfo  about  this:  whether  once  or 
thrife  hoe  that  is  baplifcd,  oiic;ht  to  bee  dipped,  or 
fprinckelcd  with  water.     Truely  the  Apostles  haue  not 


ciirioufly  commaunded  anything  in  this  behalfe.  So 
that  it  is  free  eillier  to//>rinck/e'or  to  difi.  .Sprinck- 
lingfeemeih  10  haiie  been  vied  of  the  old  Fathers:  for 
honefty  and  fliamcfastenelTe  forbiddcth  to  vncover  the 
bodv;  and  also  the  (wuake)  ftate  of  Infants  for  the 
moft  part,  can  not  away  with  dipping;  since  fprink- 
ling alfo  doetli  as  much  as  dipping.  -And  it  flandeth  in 
the  choyce  of  him  that  niinillreth  b.^ptifme,  to  fprinckle 
him  either  once  or  thrice,  after  the  cuflome  of  the 
Church,  whereof  hee  is  miniHer. 

"*  A  new  Catechifmc,  fette  forth  Dialogewife,  etc. 
[Parker  Soc.  ed.  1S44],  227. 

""  "  Lawish  sprinkling  "  =  that  sprinkling  which  was 
prescribed  and  practiced  under  the  law. 


[■4] 


confciences  are  fprinkled,  and  of  our  baptifm.  Furthermore,  feeing  that  the  virtue  and 
power  of  cleanfing  the  minds  cometh  not  from  the  water,  it  is  all  one  matter,  whether  the 
whole  body,  or  fome  part  thereof,  as  the  head,  be  wafhcd.  It  is  therefore  fufficient  if  the  fig- 
nification  of  fpiritual  baptifm  be  obferved. 

That  to  "baptize"  fignifieth  not  to  plunge  the  whole  man  into  the  water,  it  may  eafily  be 
gathered  both  of  St.  Mark's  and  St.  Luke's  gofpel,  where  we  read  thus  i^?  Rrcerfi  a  foro  iton 
comcdunt  nifi  prius  haptizati ;  that  is,  "The  Pharifees,  when  they  come  home  from  the  market, 
eat  not,  except  they  firfl  be  baptized"  —  that  is  to  fay,  wafh  their  hands.  Again :6S  Mirabatiir 
PJiarifaetis  quod  Chrijlus  non  baptizatus  accumbai  nienfae;  that  is:  "The  Pharifee  marveled 
that  Chrift  was  not  baptized,"  that  is  to  fay,  wafhed  not  his  hands,  "before  he  fat  down  at  the 
table." 

Opinions  differ,  testimony  is  not  uniform,  and  practice  may  have  varied  in 
different  parts  of  the  kingdom,  but  I  see  no  sufficient  reason  to  doubt  the  con- 
clusion of  W.  Walker,  a  ver)^  careful  writer  who  gave  large  attention  to  the 
subject  but  little  more  than  two  generations  after,^'  that,  during  the  later  half 
of  the  seventeenth  century  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  "became  the  more  general," 
as  when  he  wrote,  it  was  "almoft  the  only  way  of  Baptizing"  in  England. 

J.  Watts,  who  wrote  like  a  man  of  learning  and  wide  research,  more  than 
twenty  years  before  Walker,  summing  up  some  thirty  pages  of  close  historical 
review,  said  if  immersion  were  the  original  baptism  it  had  given  place  to  sprink- 
ling and  aspersion  :  ^°  "  which  have  wholly  fupplanted  it  .  .  .  and  fo  got  away 
the  bleffmg  from  it,  to  be  the  only  approved  and  practifed  way  in  the  centuries 
fucceeding."  Mr.  Wall,  who  published  a  little  later,  and  who  received  from 
Oxford  the  complimentary  degree  of  D.D.  for  the  eminent  ability  of  his  work, 
says : "' 

The  Inclination  of  the  People,  back'd  with  thefe  authorities,?^  carried  the  Practice  againfl 
the  Rubric;  which  Hill  requir'd  Dipping,  except  in  Cafe  of  Weaknefs.  So  that  in  the  later 
Times  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  during  the  Reigns  of  Kittg  James  and  of  Ki7tg  Charles  I.  very 
few  Children  were  dipt  in  the  Font. 

It  was  natural  that  the  Reformed  Churches  should  feel  the  influence  of 
Calvin's  judgment,  while  Zwingli,  in  his  Confession  of  Faith  to  Charles  V. 
(1530)  said:'^ 


<■'  Mark  vii :  4. 

«  Luke  xi :  38. 

cow.  Walker.  The  Doctrine  of  Daptifms,  etc. 
(167S).  147- 

""J.  Watts,  A  Scribe,  Pharisee,  Hypocrite,  and  his 
Letter  anfwered,  etc.  63. 

''W.  Wall,  The  History  0/  Jn/ant  Baptifm,  etc. 
(1720)  ii :  366. 

'-  He  had  just  cited  Musculus  {Loci  Communi  de 


Baptifmo,  etc.  431]:  "As  for  Dipping  of  the  Infant; 
we  judge  that  not  fo  neceffary,  but  that  it  is  free  for 
the  Church  to  baptize  either  by  Dipping  or  Sprink- 
ling;" and  Dr.  Whitaker,  Regius  Prof,  at  Cambridge 
[Pradectiones  de  Sacr.  de  Bap.  etc.  Q.  i.  c.  2]:  "in 
the  cafe  of  Infants  and  Cckly  People,  I  think  fprink- 
ling  fufficient." 

'^Ad  Caro/utH  Rom.  ItHp.  Fidei  H.  Zuinglii  Ratio 
[NiemeyerJ,  26. 


[■5] 


Cum  baptizamur,   abluitur  corpus  mundif-  When  we  are  baptized,  the  body  is  washed 

fimo  elemento:  fed  hoc  (ignificatur,  gratia  in  the  purest  element;  but  by  this  is  signified 
divinae  bonitatis  in  Ecclefiae  et  populi  Dei  that  through  the  riches  of  divine  mercv  we 
coetum  allectos  efle,  in  quo  candide  fit  ac  are  gatliercd  in  to  the  company  of  the  church 
pure  vivendum,  etc  and  i^eople  of  God,  in  which  one  should  live 

a  clean  and  holy  life. 

This  symbolism,  of  washing  with  water  as  the  token  of  that  spiritual  cleans- 
ing properly  belonging  to  entrance  upon  Church  life,  thenceforward  shows 
itself  in  many  of  the  Reformed  Confessions,  and  naturally  appears  to  have 
been  connected  especially  with  affusion,  or  the  method  of  baptism  by  pouring 
and  rubbing  water  upon  the  recipient.  Thus  the  Later  Confession  of  Helvetia 
(1566)  in  this  manner  speaks  :  ''"* 


Ideoque  baptifamur,  id  eft,  abluimur,  aut 
afpergimur  aqua  vifibili.  Aqua  enim  fordes 
mundat,  deficicntia  et  aeftuantia  recreat,  et 
refrigerat  corpora.  Gratia  vero  Dei  haec  ani- 
mabus  praeftat,  et  quidcm  invifibiliter  vel 
fpiritualiter. 


And  therefore  are  we  baptized,  that  is, 
•washed  and  sprinkled  with  visible  water.  For 
the  water  makcth  clean  that  which  is  filthy, 
and  refresheth  and  cooleth  the  bodies  that 
fail  and  faint.  And  the  grace  of  God  dealeth 
in  like  manner  with  the  soul;  and  that  in- 
visibly and  spiritually. 

In  the  same  year  the  Belgic  Confession  used  the  following  language  as  to 
the  same  subject,  viz. : " 


Sicut  enim  aqua  in  nos  effufa  et  fuper  cor- 
pus baptizati  eminens  ipfumque  irrigans,  for- 
des corporis  abluit:  fie  et  Sanguis  Chrifli 
animam  abluens,  a  peccatis  ilium  emundat, 
nofque  filios  irae  in  filios  Dei  regenerat  .  .  . 
Neque  tamen  hie  Baptifmus  eo  duntaxat  me- 
mento prodert,  quo  aqua  nobis  inhaerct,  aut 
quo  ea  tinginmr :  fed  per  totum  vitae  noilrae 
tempus. 


For  as  water,  being  poured  upon  us,  and  ap- 
pearing on  the  body  of  him  that  is  baptized, 
moistening  the  same,  doth  wash  away  the 
filthiness  of  the  body;  so  the  blood  of  Christ, 
washing  the  soul,  doth  cleanse  it  from  sin, 
and  doth  make  us,  which  before  were  the 
children  of  wrath,  the  sons  of  God  .  .  .  Nei- 
ther doth  this  baptism  profit  us  only  at  that 
moment  7a/ten  the  -water  restcth  upon  us,  and 
when  we  are  tnoistened  with  it;  but  it  is  avail- 
able throughout  the  whole  time  of  our  life. 

In  1573  the  Confession  of  Bohemia  defined  baptism  as  [ablutio  hominis 
per  aquam  cum  invocatione  nominis  Sacrofanctae  Trinitatis,  etc.]  '^  "  the  wash- 
ing of  the  candidate  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  holy  Trinity."  It  is 
added  :  "  "  that  washing  is  used  both  to  signify,  and  to  witness,  a  spiritual  wash- 
ing and  inward  cleansing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  the  disease  of  hereditary  sin, 
and  from  other  sins,  etc." 

In  entire  accord  with  this  we  find  the  French  Churches  prescribing  that  the 


''*  Con/effio  Helvetica  po/lerior.     Niemeyer,  517. 
JS  Con/.  Belg.  Ibid.  384.     ■«  Conf.  Bolum.  Ibid.  840. 


"'  Harmony  0/  Protestant  Confessions,  etc.  (1844)11 


[.6] 


water  be  poured  upon  the  person  to  be  baptized,^  and  the  Waldenses  [Les 
Eglises  Vaudoises]  describing  baptism  [c'est  k  dire  en  noftre  langage,  lavement 
d'eau,  ou  de  fleuve,  ou  de  fontaine] '''  as,  "the  washing  with  water,  either  that 
of  a  river,  or  a  fountain,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,"  etc.  The  Dutch  Estab- 
lished Churches  were  an  offshoot  of  the  Lutheran  side  of  the  Reformation. 
But  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  (1563)  lays  an  entirely  similar  stress  upon  that 
symbolism  of  the  rite  which  implies  its  administration  by  affusion.  Thus 
[Question  \x\\\'.^ 


Q.  Wie  wirst  du  in  der  he  Hi  gen  Taufe  erin- 
nert  und  versichcrt,  dasz  das  einige  Opfer 
Christi  am  Kreitz  dir  zti  gut  komme  ? 

A.  Also,  dasz  Christus  dieses  auszerliche 
Wasserbad  eingesetzt,  und  dabei  verheiszen 
hat,  dasz  ich  so  gewisz  mit  seinem  Blut  und 
Geist  von  der  Unrcinigkeit  meiner  Seele,  das 
ist,  alien  meinen  Sunden  gcwaschen  sei,  so 
gewisz  ich  auszerlich  mit  dem  Wasser,  welches 
die  Unsauberkeit  des  Leibes  pflegt  hinzu- 
nehmen,  gewaschen  bin. 


Q.  How  is  it  signified  and  sealed  unto  thee  in 
Holy  Baptism,  that  thou  hast  part  in  the  one 
sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross  ? 

A.  Thus:  that  Christ  has  appointed  this 
outward  washitig  with  water,  and  has  joined 
therewith  this  promise,  that  I  am  washed  with 
His  blood  and  Spirit  from  the  pollution  of  my 
soul,  that  is,  from  all  my  sins,  as  certainly  as 
I  am  washed  outwardly  with  water,  whereby 
commonly  the  filthiness  of  the  body  is  taken 
away. 


What  the  practice  in  Holland  actually  was  under  this  Catechism  will  be 
made  sure  from  the  Expositions  of  that  symbol  by  J.  Bastingius  and  P.  de 
Witte.     The  former  says  :  " 

The  ceremony,  or  rite,  is  declared  by  wafJiing  or fprinckling  with  water,  in  that  the  bodie  of 
him  that  is  baptized,  is  (princkled  with  this  water.  For  this  is  the  ende  whv  water  is  vfed,  not 
to  be  idle,  but  to  be  applied  to  the  body,  to  fprinkle  it  or  to  wafli  it,  according  to  the  com- 
mandment of  Christ:  Hereof  the  Apoflle  defineth  Baptifmc:  the  wafliing  of  water  by  the 
worde,  etc. 

The  latter  says:^^ 

Q.  How  is  it  [Baptism]  done  in  thefe  Countrcys  ? 

A.  With  fprinkling;  as  the  word  Baptifme  may  alfo  be  taken  for  that,  Mark  vii:  4  7vajh' 
tngs  of  beds,  (Baptifmes  as  in  the  Greek),  Hcb.  ix:  10. 

Q.  Ought  we  not  again  to  bring  in  dipping,  as  the  Mufcowites  and  others  do  ? 

A.  It  is  not  neceffary;  becaufc  wajliing  is  done  with  fprinkling  :\s  well  as  by  dipping,  etc. 

We  have  moreover  the  testimony  of  a  traveler,  taken  on  the  spot  a  few 


"  Quick,  Synodicon  in  Gallia  Re/ormata,  etc. 
(i6g2),  ii:  453. 

'*  Jean  Leger,  Hijloire  Generate  des  Eglifcs  Evan- 
geliques  des  Vallees  de  Piemont,  etc.  (1669)  65. 

*"  I  quote  from  the  later  German  and  English  ver- 
sions as  given  autlientically  in  the  Tercentenary  Edi- 
tion (1S63),  by  the  German  Reformed  Church  in  this 
country,  p.  201. 

"  A  n  Expofition   or  Comtncntarie  vpon  the   Cat- 


echifnte  ofChriJlian  religion  which  is  taught  in  the 
Scholes  and  Churches  0/  tlie  Lowe  Countries,  etc. 
(1593)  p.  138,  verso. 

*-  Catechizing  upon  tlie  Hcidclbergh  Catcchifme, 
etc.  publijlied  after  Precedent  Inflection  and  Appro- 
bation of  the  Rev.  Claffis  of  Hoorn,  etc.,  and  now 
after  tlie  Si.rtienth  Impreffion  tranflated  for  tlte 
Englifi  Reformed  Congregation  in  A  mferdarti, 
etc.  p.  514. 


[■7] 


years  later.  Sir  William  Brereton  describes  a  baptism  which  he  witnessed  in 
Amsterdam  in  1634,  b}'  which  time,  in  that  unaltering  land,  no  great  change,  it 
is  fair  to  think,  had  modified  the  Dutch  custom  of  the  early  part  of  the  same 
generation  : " 

The  minister  here  baptized  after  sermon  fourteen  children ;  the  water  not  sprinkled  upon 
their  faces,  but  the  predicant  doth  pull  back  the  cloth  and  dressing  on  the  head,  so  that  all  the 
skull  of  the  child's  head  is  bare,  and  holding  the  face  downwards,  he  is  sufficiently  prodigal  of 
\i7\Xcx,  pour i/ig  divers  handf Ills  tipon  the  chihVs  head,  7i.ViCi.  holding  his  hand  on  the  child's  head, 
rublniig  the  same  during  all  the  time  that  he  is  pronouncing  the  words  of  baptism,  which,  as  I 
conceivcd,^4  were  equivalent  to  those  of  ours :  —  "I  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  etc."  using  as  long  a  speech  whilst  he  held  the  child  in  his  arms,  as  our  [English]  minis- 
ters do.  I  observed  diligently,  and  he  used  not  the  sign  of  the  cross,  which  all  the  Dutch 
churches  reject.  Here  were  no  god-fathers ;  those  that  brought  and  carried  the  children  gave 
the  name  unto  the  predicant,  and  all  those  were  women  that  held  and  brought  the  children. 

There  was  a  Dutch  Church  in  London  which  published  the  Corpus  Difci- 
plinae,  or  the  Body  of  Discipline,  used  in  the  Reformed  Churches  of  Holland, 
from  which  I  take  the  following,  as  showing  the  rule  they  recognized,  viz. :  *' 

As  for  fprinkling  once  or  three  times,  we  hold  it  indifferent  .  .  .  Sprinkling  with  water 
teacheth  us  .  .  .  the  waJJiing  away  of  our  sins  by  Jefus  Christ  .  .  .  As  water  being  poured 
upon  us,  and  being  feen  and  fprinkled  upon  the  body  of  him  that  is  baptized,  doth  wajk  away 
the  filthinefs  of  the  body,  fo  likewife  the  blood  of  Christ  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
inwardly  vvorketh  the  fame  in  the  foul. 

So  far  as  the  Established  Reformed  Churches  of  Holland,  and  the  French 
(Walloon)  Churches  existing  there,  are  concerned  —  together  making  the  great 
majority  of  all  —  it  is  now  clear  that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered by  pouring,  accompanied  with  such  friction  of  the  subject  of  it  as  should 
suggest  that  washing  from  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  which  furnished  the  symbolism 
especially  emphasized  in  their  creeds.  There  were  also  some  Anabaptists  and 
Mennonites  in  the  Low  Countries  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  cent- 
ury, whose  practice  in  this  regard  we  need  to  investigate,  as  well. 

I  shall  perhaps  surprise  some  of  my  readers  —  but  not  more  than  the  dis- 
covery astonished  myself  —  when  I  say  that  the  Anabaptists  do  not  appear  to 
have  begun  with  baptism  by  immersion.  Hoornbeek  (1653)  seems  to  be  one 
of  the  most  careful  and  comparatively  unprejudiced  writers  upon  the  Ana- 
baptistic  movement  of  his  time.  He  lays  down  five  points  as  peculiar  to 
them  in  Holland  —  from  which  insistence  on  immersion  is  noticeably  omitted 
—  viz.:'^ 


'^  Travels,  etc.   Cheetliam  Soe.  Pub.  p.  64. 
**  He  did  not  understand  Dutch  well  enough  to  be 
sure. 


^'•'Corpus  Difciplinae,   etc.    (1645)  fB.  M.  (E.  313. 
[15])],  7.  >2,  63- 
'^  Sutnttta  Controverf.  Relig.  etc.  (ed.  1658),  358. 


[i8] 


Apud  nos  vulgo  noti  funt  ex  qiiinque  ar- 
ticulis:  oppugnati  paedobaptifmi,  crroris  pri- 
marii,  &  apud  illos  commiiniiTimi ;  defcnfi 
anabaptifmi;  ncgata:  Chrirti  ex  Matris  fub- 
(lantia  incarnationis ;  interdicti  ipfis  omnis 
generis  juramenti;  &  officii  Magiftratus. 


With  us  they  are  commonly  known  by  five 
tenets,  viz. :  (i)  thev  oppose  infant  baptism, 
their  fundamental  error,  shared  by  all;  (2) 
they  insist  upon  rebaptism;  (3)  they  deny 
that  Christ  took  his  flesh  from  his  mother; 
{4)  they  forbid  their  members  to  take  oath,  or 
(S)  to  hold  the  magistrate's  office. 

Lambertus  Hortensius  (1548)^'  and  Guy  de  Bres  (1565)^'  are  two  of  the 
earliest  and  most  careful  historians  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  Anabaptism, 
and  their  statements  fully  accord  with  this  summary  which  Hoornbeek  gives. 
I  have  in  my  possession  a  curious  confirmation  —  of  date  1579  —  of  the  sub- 
stantial accuracy  of  this  resuT?ie.  It  is  entitled  \_Een  Nicu  Liedeken,  etc.]^  "A 
New  Song,  made  by  two  Friends  sacrificed  in  London,  in  the  year  1575,"  etc. 
These  "two  Friends"  were  John  Pieters  and  Henry  Terwoort,  the  protomartyrs 
under  Elizabeth.  It  relates  how  they  were  summoned  to  St.  Paul's  Church  and 
questioned,  and  their  own  account  of  the  interview  is  (partly)  this,  viz. : 


Dacr  waren  vergaert,  feer  veel  vermacrt 
Lecraers  hooghe  gheacht 
Den  Biffchof  als  die  llercke 
En  ander  volck  by  macht. 

Vier  vraghen  fy  voorflelden 
Deerfte  van  wacr  hy  quam 
Van  Chriflo  fy  vcrtelden 
Off  hy  zijn  vleefch  aen  nam 
Van  Maria  faen  wy  en  vcrflaen 
So  niet  ghelijck  ghy  fegt 
Noch  met  vraghen  fy  heur  qucldcn: 
Is  dan  tfweeren  onrecht. 

Dees  antwoorde  wilt  hooren 
Die  was  dander  ghelijck 
Noch  ftelden  fy  haer  vooren 
Mach  een  Chrillcn  publijck 
Sijn  kinderen  fnel  doen  doopen  wel 
Segt  ons  trechte  bediet 
Sy  fpraken  fonder  verftooren 
Wy  en  hebbens  ghelefen  niet. 

Noch  vraechden  fy  na  dcfen 
Vermach  een  Chriften  ledt 
Een  ouerheyt  te  wefen 
En  te  bedienen  net 
En  falich  zijn ;  verllaet  wel  mijn 
Segt  ons  dat  recht  befcheyt. 


There  were  gathered,  very  many  celebrated 

Professors  highly  esteemed 

The  Bishop  as  the  strong  one 

And  other  people  of  consideration. 

They  proposed  four  questions 

The  first  from  where  He  came 

From  Christ  they  said 

If  he  had  taken  his  flesh 

From  Mary  sweet ;  we  do  not  understand  it 

As  you  say  it. 

Still  with  questions  they  plagued  them: 

Is  then  taking  an  oath  a  crime  ? 

Listen  to  this  answer 

It  was  like  unto  the  other 

They  also  propounded  to  them  : 

May  a  Christian  publicly 

Cause  his  children  to  be  baptized  quickly 

Give  us  the  right  interpretation? 

They  replied,  without  anger, 

We  iiave  not  read  it. 

Yet  after  this  they  asked 

Is  a  Christian  allowed 

To  be  a  magistrate 

And  to  serve  as  such  ? 

And  will  he  be  saved ;  understand  me  well. 

Give  us  the  right  explanation  of  this. 


*'  Tvmvllvvtn  Atiabapti/larvm,  etc.  11. 
"  La  Racine  Sovrce  et  FonJcment  det  Atiabaptijles 
ov  Rebnptifez  de  no/Ire  Temfis,  etc.  passim. 


^Van  Glubodcn,  etc.  hier  cuhter  is  noch  by  ghenocclit 
een  Liedeken  van  it  Vrienden  opgeoffcrt  te  Lonnen  in 
EngJtelant.    Int  iaer  M.D.LXXV.  (1579)  16°.  p.  163. 


[■9] 


From  the  confessions  involved  in  the  chaos  of  these  rude  stanzas  it  is  easy 
to  see  —  what  indeed  is  made  evident  by  the  histories  of  the  time'° — that 
these  poor  Flemings  were  burned  for  insisting  on  the  "five  points"  above 
named. 

If,  now,  it  were  true,  as  it  has  been  common  in  some  quarters  to  assert,  that 
immersion  were  the  universal  method  of  administering  the  rite  of  Baptism, 
when,  near  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Stork  and 
Muncer  laid  the  foundations  of  Anabaptism,  the  inferences  would  be  allow- 
able :  (i)  that  the  new  sect  baptized  in  the  common  way;  and  (2)  that,  so 
doing,  no  reference  would  be  natural  to  their  practice  in  that  respect  either  in 
their  own  creed,  or  in  the  popular  objections  first  raised  against  them.  We 
have  seen,  however,  that  the  reverse  was  the  fact,  and  that  the  method  of  bap- 
tizing then  nearly  universal  was  by  pouring,  or  sprinkling.''  And  this  fact 
renders  it  inevitable  that  had  the  Anabaptists  begun  by  laying  down  the  law 
that  dipping  is  the  only  valid  baptism,  that  law  would  have  found  a  place  in 
the  summary  of  their  belief,  while  their  practice  under  it  must  have  provoked 
the  dissent  of  those  who  followed  a  different  way.  Neither  being  true,  the 
conclusion  seems  inevitable  that  they  administered  baptism,  as  others  around 
them  did,  by  affusion. 

This  quite  agrees  with  Robert  Baylie's  statement,  in  1647  : '^ 

Among  the  old  Anabaptifts,  or  thofe  over  fea  to  this  day  fo  far  as  I  can  learn  by  their 
writs  [writings]  or  any  relation  that  has  yet  come  to  my  ears,  the  queftion  of  dipping  and 
fprinkling  came  never  upon  the  Table.  As  I  take  it,  they  dip  none,  but  all  whom  they  baptize 
thcv  fprinkle  in  the  same  manner  as  is  our  custome. 

Here,  again,  I  have  stumbled  upon  the  acquisition  of  what  seems  to  me  a 
strong  confirmatory  proof  of  the  view  which  I  take.  It  is  an  ancient  Dutch 
version  of  Lambertus  Hortensius,''  containing  illustrations.  Over  against  the 
statement  which  this  author  makes  in  regard  to  the  original  Anabaptist  bap- 
tism—  which  is  the  following,  viz.  : '*  \et inter ijlajeditionis  capita  cdebriora  Munt- 
zeri  erat  nouus  baptijmiis  in  libera  ccdefia,  quern  pnvdarus  ille  iofo  orbe  refragatiie 
iiieri  uoluit\    "  and  among    the  chief  tenets  of    the  sedition  of    Munzer,  was 


•*  See  Str>'pe,  A  nttals,  etc.  ii  (i) :  564 ;  Fuller, 
Church  History,  etc.  iv :  390 ;  Collier,  Eccl.  Hist. 
Great  Brit.  \i:  543;  Evans,  £ar.  Eng.  Bap.  1:  151- 
165.  See  the  writ  for  their  execution  in  Rymer.  Foed. 
XV.  740,  and  Wilkins,  iv :  281. 

"'We  have  seen  that  the  Romish  Church  had  aban- 
doned immersion,  and  that  the  then  newly  forming  Re- 
formed Churches  neither  believed  nor  practiced  it,  but 
sjmnkled  or  poured. 

^- A  nabafii i/m  the  True  Fountain,  etc.  i6j. 


"'  See  note  87,  atite.  There  is  also  in  the  library  of 
the  British  Museum  the  first  edition  [as  I  suppose]  of 
\Q.3Xxow' %\  H ifloire  des  AnabaptsJUs  ;  contennnt  leur 
Doctrine,  les  Divcrfcs  Opinions,  gui  Ics  divi/eni  en 
ptufteurs  Sects;  Ics  Troubles,  quails  ont  caufcz,  et 
cnjin,  tout  ce  guij^ejl  pajfi  de  plus  conftdcrable  h  leur 
cgard,  depuis  Van  1521  jusques  h  pre/ent.  Amster- 
dam, 1699.  12^.  [B.  M.  (4139.  c.)J  which  contains  the 
same  engraving,  or  a  close  copy  thereof. 

Mp.  9. 


[20] 


that  of  a  new  baptism  into  a  free  Church,  whicii  that  notorious  man  desired, 
in  the  face  of  all  opposition,  to  promote  "  —  is  placed  the  engraving  which  1 
have  had  fac-similed  for  these  pages.  The  "  new  baptism  "  was  that  re-bap- 
tism, as  a  believer,  whicli  was  required  of  all  who  had  been  baptized  in 
infancy.  And  the  manner  of  it  is  shown  to  be  by  affusion.  Not  daring  in 
the  beginning  to  rouse  popular  opposition  by  any  pubHc  re-administration  of 
the  rite,  the  service 
took  place  in  a  pri- 
vate house,  as  is 
shown  by  the  bed 
on  one  side  of  the 
chamber;  and  the 
candidates  kneeled 
before  the  dispenser, 
who  lifted  water  in 
his  hands,  and  let  it 
fall  upon  their  heads. 
I  do  not  presume 
that  this  picture  pho- 
tographs any  actual 
scene ;  but  I  do  re- 
gard it  as  most  un- 
likely that  such  a 
pictorial  adjunct  of 
so  ancient  a  history 
w  o  u  1  d  go  to  the 
length  of  violent  and 

—  as  it  would  have 
been,  were  it  untrue 

—  offensive  misrep- 
resentation of  a 
transaction  which 
must  have  been  well 

known  in  its  character,    and   was  so  vital    to  these  people  as  to  have  given 
them  their  popular  designation. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  fact  about  this,  and  however  some  of  the  many 
minor  subdivisions  of  the  Anabaptist  body'^  may  have  subsequently  modified 


^^  De   Bres   declares   that    tliese    subdivisions    soon 
became  numerous.     He  says  [p.  66] : 


Neant  moms  afin  de  n'eflre   trop   long,  &  de  peur 
d'ennuyer  les  lectcurs  de  tant  de  diuerlitez  de  fectes  ie 


b'] 


their  practice  in  this  respect,'*  there  is  fortunately  evidence  that  none  of  the 
Anabaptists  in  Holland  baptized  by  immersion  down  to  the  year  1619.  With- 
out seeking  to  multiply  citations,  it  will  be  suiificient  to  note  :  — 

(i)  the  fact  that  —  as  we  shall  see  directly  —  when  in  16 19  the  CoUcgianten 
arose  at  Rynsburg,  it  is  clear  that  they  proceeded  to  difference  themselves 
from  all  previous  rejecters  of  infant  baptism  in  Holland,  by  introducing  dip- 
ping, or  immersion  ; 

(2)  the  fact  that  Dr.  Muller,  the  distinguished  antiquary,  himself  a  Dutch 
Mennonite,  declared  that  previous  to  1619''  "the  Waterlanders,  nor  any  other 
of  the  various  parties  of  the  Netherland  Doopsgezindeii  [Baptists],  practiced 
at  any  time  baptism  by  immersion  ; "  and 

(3)  the  fact  that  Dr.  J.  G.  de  Hoop  Schefifer,  a  learned  professor  at  the 
present  time  in  the  Mennonite  College  at  yVmsterdam,  and  the  man  of  all 
others  who  has  studied  the  question  with  most  advantage  of  culture  and  posi- 
tion, declares  that  ^*  "the  Collegianten  (1619)  were  the  first  persons  who 
practiced  immersion  in  the  Netherlands." 

The  Mennonites  (proper)  remain.  But  it  was  their  habit  to  baptize  by 
affusion;  as  to  that  rite  differing  from  the  Reformed  only  \sed neutiqiuim  in- 
fantcs'Y'^m.  declining  to  baptize  infants.  Hermann  Schyn,  their  faithful  historian, 
devotes  several  pages  to  this  subject.  After  stating  several  reasons  which  led 
them  to  reject  immersion  he  concludes  : '°° 


n'en  nomeray  feiilemet  q  quinze  de  noms.  En  pre- 
mier lieu  il  y  a  Tliomas  Aliiiicer  nuec  sa  bande.  Puis 
apres  il  y  a  les  Anabapiiftes  .ApoAoliqs  en  (econd  lieu. 
l.es  Aiiabaptiftes  fpiriuiels  lepaarez  du  mode.  Les 
Anabaptilles  faincis  &  fans  iiechez,  ce  font  les  Pai- 
faicts  Les  Anabaplillts  fail'ons  filciice.  Les  Ana- 
bapliftes  Pnans,  &  (e  fians  du  toul  en  l^ieu,  reiettans 
tons  nioycns  ordinaires.  Les  Anabaplirtes  Euihufi- 
aftiques.  Les  pros  Anabaplifles  libres.  Des  freres 
Huitiles.  Des  Anabaplifles  Au^ullins.  Dcs  );loricu.x 
&  triomphans  Anabaptilles  de  Mimllre,  de  Melclnor 
Hoffman,  &  les  Meherlandrs.  Kt  finalemcnt  dcs  Men- 
nonites de  noftre  temps,  &  des  Fianiques,  iefquels  fe 
font  diuifez  depuis  peu  de  iours.  Ne  Voila  pas  bie  creu 
&  muliipliii  en  fi  peu  de  teps? 

^  Rev.  H.  S.  Durrage,  editor  of  the  Zioii's  Advo- 
cate, a  Baptist  journal  published  in  Portland,  Me.  — 
i»ho  has  made  a  special  study  of  these  questions  —  in 
an  article  on  "  Early  English  ami  American  Baptists" 
published  in  the  Iiidi-petidctit  of  21  Oct.  iSSo,  says  that 
as  early  as  .April,  1525,  Wolfgang  Ulin;an  was  immersed 
by  Conrad  Grcbcl  in  the  Rhine  at  Schaflhausen.  Ho 
adds  that  others  were  immersed  a  little  later,  in  the 
Siller  river.  This  is  cited  from  the  diary  of  Kessler, 
of  St.  Gall.     Mr.  R.  Larclay  in  his  htner  Life  0/  the 


Relig.  Socs.  0/ tlu  Commonivealth,  etc.  refers,  as  I  sup- 
pose, to  the  same  case  (p.  75],  saying:  "  From  J.  Kess- 
ler's  Sabbata,  a  MS.  printed  by  the  Historical  .Society 
at  St.  Gallen,  Switzerland,  it  appears  that  Uliman, 
afterwards  a  teacher  in  the  Church  of  Anabaptists  at 
St.  Gallen,  was  dipt,"  apparently  citing  in  proof  Cor- 
nelius's Geschichte  des  Mnnsterischen  A  ufruhrs,  ii : 
32,  33.  36,  37,  64,  which  I  have  as  yet  failed  to  procure. 
Mr.  Barclay  adds  that  "the  Swiss  Unitarian  Baptists 
sought  a  refuge  in  Poland,  and,  in  1550,  the  rite  of  im- 
mersion was  practised  in  Poland." 

"•  See  his  testimony  in  Evans,  i :  223. 

"*  See  his  testimony  in  Barclay,  75. 

""Confession  prepared  by  Hans  dc  Ries  and  Lub- 
bert  Gerrits:  Article  xxxi.  Schyn,  Historia  Mennon- 
itartnn,  etc.  i :  208. 

\<*>  Historia  Meniionitarinn,  etc.  ii :  35-38.  Bar- 
clay [S3]  says : 

The  Mennonites  strnnplv  condemned  infant  b.iptism 
and  made  use  of  adult  baptism.  It  was  administered 
by  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  person  received, 
etc. 


["] 


Qiiare  plurimae  noftrae  Ecclefiae  Baptif- 
mum  folummodo  per  effufionem  aquae  in 
caput  baptizandi  adminiflrant;  certiffime  crc- 
dentes  quod  non  aquae  multitude,  ctfi  effet 
totius  Oceani,  fufficere  poffit  ad  noftrorum 
peccatorum  ablutionem,  si  baptifmus  non  in- 
fucata  fide  cS:  vera  refipifcentia  a  nobis  recipi- 
atur. 


Wherefore  nearly  all  of  our  Churches  ad- 
minister baptism  only  by  pouring  water  upon 
the  head  of  the  candidate;  most  surely  be- 
lieving that  it  is  not  the  quantity  of  water  — 
were  it  even  the  whole  ocean — which  can 
avail  for  the  cleansing  of  our  sins  ;  unless  our 
baptism  is  received  by  us  with  a  genuine  faith 
and  a  true  repentance. 

It  is  needful  here  still  further  to  establish  the  fact  that  it  was  not  until  in 
1619,  that  the  Collcgianten,  one  branch  of  the  rejecters  of  infant  baptism  in 
Holland,  did  introduce  immersion  into  that  country ;  because  as  that  date, 
although  ten  years  subsequent  to  Smyth's  se-baptism,  was  more  than  twenty 
previous  to  the  rise  of  the  Baptist  controversy  in  England,  confusion  and  mis- 
understanding have  arisen  in  regard  to  it.'°'  As  to  this  the  testimony  of  Brandt 
will  be  ample  and  conclusive.  After  describing,  under  date  of  A.D,  1619,  their 
origin,  he  says  : '°" 

From  the  place  of  their  meeting  they  came  to  be  called  Rynfbiirgers ;  and  from  their  way 
of  holding  forth,  Prophets.  They  were  afterwards  ftiled  Collegiants  [CoUegianten],  from  the 
colleges  or  focieties  which  they  eftabliflied  in  all  places,  where  they  could  make  a  party. 
Having  fixed  their  feparate  meeting  at  Rynfburg,  they  likewife  celebrated  the  Lords  Supper 
together,  and  began  to  advance  the  notion  of  dipping  or  plunging,  as  the  manner  was  among  the 
Primitive  Christians  in  the  hot  countries  of  the  East.  Thus  became  the  Plunging-baptism,  as 
they  called  it,  in  practice  among  them.  They  prevailed  with  some  to  fuffer  ihemfelves  to  be 
thus  dipped  all  over  in  the  very  Tan-pits.  They  alio  ufed  this  kind  of  plunging  with  people, 
W'ho,  upon  their  own  confeffion,  had  been  before  baptized  by  the  Anabaptifls,  in  their  old  age. 
They  rejected  Infant-baptism,  as  well  as  the  Anabaptifts;  and  with  them  maintained  that  no 
Chriilian  ought  to  bear  the  office  of  a  Magistrate,  or  to  wage  war. 

One  further  subject  requires  mention  before  we  are  prepared  to  sum  up  the 
conclusions  of  this  brief  historical  review. 

Subsequent  to  the  earliest  introduction  of  the  gospel  to  savage  peoples,  and 
after  Christianity  had  had  a  few  generations  in  which  to  settle  down  to  its 
work,  it  became  the  theory  in  all  branches  of  the  Church  —  since  it  is  clear 
that,  whatever  were  the  primitive  practice,  all  then  believed  and  thoroughly 
practised  infant  baptism  —  that  there  would  be  no  adult  candidates  for  the 


'*'  Thus  the  Exantiiter  and  Chronicle,  of  ig  Aug. 
1880,  says,  speakinp  of  the  date  of  the  organization  of 
Smyth's  church:  "it  is  well  known  that  while  some  of 
the  Mennonites  practised  affusion,  many  of  them  were 
immersed" — <M\n^  Mosheim\\\\>xooi.  But  Mosheim 
published  his  Injtitutioncs  more  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  ago,  and  the  world  h.is  learned  much  since 
then  as  to  ecclesiastical   history.     The  remark  would 


have  been  true  if  referred  to  the  date  of  the  organ- 
ization of  Spilsburj''s  Church  in  England,  which  was 
after  1619,  but  it  is  in  error—  as  has  been  shown — as 
it  stands. 

'"-Gerard  Brandt,  History  of  the  Reformation  in 
the  Lotu  Countries,  etc.  [original,  in  Low  Dutch,  1671, 
English  translation,  1723]  (ed.  i723^iv:  56.  Compare 
Jan  WaRenaar,  Amsterdam,  etc.  (1765)  ii:  204-206. 


[-^3] 


ordinance.  Hence  no  provision  appears  in  the  ancient  liturgies  for  any  other 
than  infant  baptism.  It  was  not  until  1645  that,  at  the  third  Synod  of  Charen- 
ton,  the  Reformed  Church  of  PVance  made  such  provision,  '°^  nor  until  the 
revision  of  166 1  that  the  English  Prayer-Book  recognized  such  administration 
by  the  insertion  of  a  form  for  the  "  Public  Baptifm  of  fuch  as  are  of  Riper 
Years,"  which — says  the  Preface  —  "by  y"  growth  of  Anabaptifm,'°*  through 
y®  Licentioufnefs  of  y*^  late  Times  crept  in  amongfl  us,  is  now  become  necef- 
far)'^;  and  maybe  allwaies  ufefull,  for  y"  baptizing  of  Natives  in  our  Planta- 
tions, and  others  converted  to  y*^  Faith.'""'  Nor  would  the  fonts  of  the  i6th 
and  17th  centuries,  while  large  enough  for  the  immersion  of  a  new-born  infant, 
have  answered  the  same  purpose  for  full-grown  men  and  women.''*  I  take  it, 
then,  that  on  those  rare  occasions  of  waifs  from  distant  heathenism,  and  the 
like,  when  the  ordinance  needed  to  be  administered  to  full-grown  converts,  they 
must  have  been  sprinkled,  or  resort  was  had  to  a  stream,  or  pool.  And  among 
those  affusing  Reformed  Churches  which  laid  stress  upon  the  symbolism  of 
washing  off  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  as  prefiguring  that  inward  and  spiritual 
cleansing  which  should  fit  the  soul  for  its  new  relations,  it  would  seem  to  be 
almost  inevitable  that  the  method  of  procedure  adopted  would  be  for  the 
administrator  and  the  candidate  to  wade  in  together  until  they  reached  a  deptli 
sufficient  to  enable  the  minister  without  much  stooping  to  reach  the  surface 
with  his  hands,  and  for  him  then,  with  them,  to  lift  and  pour  water  upon  the 
neophyte's  head  and  uncovered  shoulders,  accompanied  with  more  or  less  of 
the  motion  of  washing  with  the  same.  This  best  agrees  with  much  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Reformed  Confessions  which  I  have  already  cited,  which  again 
and  again  refer  to  the  water  as  being  poured,  so  as  to  rest  on  the  body  and  to 
appear  on  it,  and  to  make  it  clean  and  refresh  it. 

I  now  submit  that,  by  the  foregoing  citations,  I  have  reasonably  established 
the  following  points,  viz. : 

a.  That,  whatever  may  have  been  the  mode  of  baptism  at  the  first  organiza- 
tion of  the  Christian  Church,  sprinkling  or  affusion  was  used  for  the  baptism 
of  the  sick  within  about  one  hundred  years  of  the  death  of  the  apostle  John ; 
that  it  was  sometimes  employed  in  the  fifth   century  for  the  baptism  of  the 


'™  Quick,  Synodicon,  etc.  ii:  447.  "The  Form  and 
Mnnner  of  Baptizing  Pagans,  Jews,  Mahometans,  and 
Anabaptists  converted  to  the  Christian  Faith,"  etc. 

'^  The  idea  of  course  is,  that  the  spread  of  Anabap- 
tistic  principles  tended  to  diminish  Infant  baptisms, 
and  so  left  the  unbaptized  to  grow  to  adult  years. 

jM  \  cijg  the  original  MS.  now  in  keeping  in  the 
library  of  Parliament. 


^^  E.  f^.  The  font  still  preserved  at  Austerfield,  in  or 
from  which,  19-29  March,  15S9-90,  William  Bradford, 
afterwards  the  second  Governor  of  Plymouth  Colony, 
was  baptized,  is  dug  out  of  a  block  of  brown  stone, 
the  circular  excavation  being  about  23  in.  across,  and 
0  in.  in  depth  at  the  central  deepest  point.  It  had 
descended  to  the  base  use  of  a  water-trough  for  fowls, 
when  rescued  by  American  interest. 


[=4] 

well ;  and   that  by  the  twelfth,  a   Council  gave  formal  sanction  to  the  equal 
validity  of  sprinkling,  pouring  and  dipping. 

/;.  That,  although  the  rubric  of  the  English  Church  from  its  beginning  to 
this  day  has  required  the  immersion  of  infants  except  in  cases  of  physical  dis- 
ability, in  point  of  fact  the  exception  became  the  law  before  the  time  of  our 
fathers;  so  that  in  the  later  portion  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  through  that  of 
James  I.,  as  the  rule,  children  were  baptized  by  affusion, 

c.  That,  following  the  lead  of  Calvin,  the  Reformed  Churches  made  sprink- 
ling, or  affusion,  the  law  of  their  creeds. 

d.  That  the  Anabaptists  themselves  at  first  administered  their  adult  baptism 
by  pouring. 

e.  That  the  Mennonites  always  did,  and  do,  the  same. 

f.  That  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Smyth's  change  of  view  as  to  the  validity 
of  infant  baptism  —  and,  indeed,  for  more  than  ten  years  afterward  —  there  is 
no  evidence  of  the  existence  in  Holland  of  any  sect  administering  the  rite  in 
any  other  way  than  by  pouring. 

g.  That  this  pouring  was  accompanied  by  rubbing,  so  as  to  represent  the  act 
of  washing  the  body,  or  some  part  of  it,  clean  from  soil  or  stain,  as  a  symbol 
of  that  washing  of  regeneration  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  cleanses  the  redeemed 
soul. 

In  view  of  all  which,  I  am  prepared  to  conclude  it  as  every  way  most  prob- 
able, that  when  Mr.  Smyth  renounced  the  baptism  of  his  youth,  and  took  upon 
him  that  rite  in  a  new  form,  he  did  so  by  affusion.  To  my  mind  this  theory  best 
explains  his  own  language  and  that  of  others  with  regard  to  the  transaction. 

Thus  he  himself,  in  the  book  which  he  at  once  proceeded  to  publish  to 
justify  the  step  he  had  taken,  habitually  speaks  of  baptism  as  ^^  waj/iing  with. 
water ;"*°^  "the  forme  [of  baptism]  is  waJJiing  one  into  the  covenant;"'"* 
"the  true  forme  of  baptifm  confifleth  in  three  things:  (i)  wajliitig  with 
water  ;  (2)  a  new  creature  ;  (3)  into  the  name  of  Chriffc,  or  into  the  Trinity;  "  '"^ 
"  therefor  neceffarily  we  mufl  for  having  true  baptifme  repeat  waJJiing  in  to 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Sonne  &  Holy  Ghost."  "°  So  he  asks :  "  how  then 
can  any  man  without  great  folly  7vaJJi  with  water  (which  is  the  leafl  cS:  laft  of 
baptifme)  one  \i.e.  an  infant]  that  is  not  baptized  with  the  Spirit  &  cannot  con- 
feffe  with  the  mouth  ;  or  how  is  it  baptifme  if  one  be_/2?  waJJied  V  "' 

In  like  manner  Richard  Clyfton,  in  his  reply  to  the  book  whicli  I  have  just 
been  quoting,  uses  the  same  term  in  the  like  sense,  e.g.:  "  it  is  fuch  a  wajhing 


'""  The  Character  of  the  Deajl,  etc.  v. 
108  Jbid.  50.  100  JiiJ  55. 


i'»  Ibid.  57. 
"1  Ibid.  V. 


[=5] 


as  preacheth  unto  vs  the  purging  of  our  finnes  byChrift;""-  "without  this 
waJJiing  with  water  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  etc.  it  cannot  be  baptifme." '" 
So  he  calls  Smyth's  new  church  "  a  new  waJJied  companie."  "■*  And  he  else- 
where makes  it  clear  that  by  this  term  "washing"  neither  of  them  intended 
immersion,  for,  assuming  that  there  is  no  difference  between  them  as  to  that,  he 
incidentally  shows  that  he  means  sprinkling  by  it :  "  Concerning  the  forme  of 
baptifm  I  confefie  it  is  t\\Q  JPrinkling  of  a  fit  fubject  with  water  into  the  name 
of  the  Father,  etc."  "^ 

Ainsworth  also  published  in  reply  to  Smyth,  and  in  his  reference  to  the  new 
baptism  he  says  :  "^ 

Mr.  Smyth  anabaptized  himfcif  with  water,  but  a  child  could  have  done  the  like  unto  him- 
felf,  who  cannot  perform  any  part  of  fpiritual  worfliip  :  therefore  Mr.  Sm.  anabaptizing  himfcif 
with  water  did  no  part  of  fpiritual  worfliip ;  and  confequently  it  was  carnal  worfliip,  and  fervice 
of  the  Divil.  If  he  anfwcr,  that  a  child,  though  he  could  cajl  water  on  him/elf,  &  utter  fuch 
words  as  he  heard  Mr.  Sm.  fpeak  withal ;  yet  could  he  not  preach  or  open  the  covenant  as  Mr. 
Sm.  did,  etc. 

Lastly,  it  is  of  great  interest  in  itself,  while  it  may  possibly  throw  a  sugges- 
tion also  upon  a  question  of  baptism  which  has  been  mooted  on  our  side  of  the 
sea,  that,  in  1645,  Roger  Williams  in  his  Christenings  fnake  not  Christians — a 
little  book  for  a  long  time  lost,  and  only  within  the  present  year  recovered,  and 
reprinted  from  the  probably  unique  copy  in  the  British  Museum  —  says  the 
evangelization  of  the  heathen  must  be  brought  about : "' 

By  such  jMeffcngers  as  can  prove  their  lawfuU  fending  and  Commiffion  from  the  Lord  Jefus, 
to  make  Difciples  out  of  all  nations :  and  fo  to  baptize  or  luaJJi  t/iem  eig  rij  ivofia  into  the 
Tiame  ox  profejp.011  of  Ihe  holy  Trinity,  etc. 

So,  on  another  page  of  the  same  tract,"^  he  says,  had  he  been  so  minded,  he 
could  have  brought  the  whole  Indian  "  Countrey  to  have  obferved  one  day  in 
feven  ;  I  adde  to  have  received  a  Baptifme  (or  wafliing),  etc." 

I  need  only  add  under  this  branch  of  the  subject  one  single  further  decisive 
testimony  to  the  point,  that,  whatever  the  form  of  baptism  resorted  to  on  this 
occasion  may  have  been,  it  was  not  immersion.  I  find  it  in  a  letter  written  at 
Amsterdam  a  few  months  after  by  Lubbert  Gerrils  to  the  Mennonite  church 
at  Leuwarden,  in  whicli,  referring  to  Smyth  and  his  company,  he  says :  "' 


'"  Thi  Plea  for  Infants  and  Elder  People  concern- 
ing their  Bapti/me,  etc.  (1610),  171. 

»'"//.;V/.  173. 

>'«  Ibid.  vi. 

^^^Ibid.  159. 

"'■.'?  Defence  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  U'or/liip  and 
Minijlcrie,  in  tlu  Chrijlian  Churclies  feparatcd  from 
Antichrijl,  etc.  (1609),  frj. 


"'  Chrijlcnings  tnake  not  Chrijlutns,  or  A  Briefe 
Difcourfe  concerning  tliat  name  Heathen,  cotnntonly 
given  to  tlie  Indians.  A  nd  alio  concerning  tliai  great 
point  of  iluir  Converfion,  i(P,  pp.  ii.  22.  [li.  M.  (IC. 
iiSg.  [S.])l  p.  17- 

J'-V^/V/.  p.  11. 

""Translated  by  Mr.  MuUur,  and  printed  in  Evans, 
i:  212. 


[26] 


Therefore,  first  of  all,  we  ministers  have,  according  to  the  desire  of  our  brethren,  sum- 
moned these  English  before  us,  and  again  most  perfectly  examined  them  as  regards  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  and  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  also  inquired  for  the  foundation  and 
for7n  of  their  baptism,  and  we  have  not  found  that  there  was  any  difference  at  all,  neither  in  the 
OJie  nor  the  other  thing,  between  them  and  us,  etc. 

This  verdict,  within  a  twelvemonth,  of  a  jury  on  the  ground,  cautious  yet 
disposed  to  be  friendly,  must  be  conclusive  as  to  the  point  that,  after  some 
fashion,  the  baptism  of  Smyth  and  his  company  was  by. pouring,  and  neither 
by  sprinkling,  strictly  so  called,  nor  dipping, 

3.  Did  Mr.  Sffiyih  first  affiise  himsclfi  and  then  in  like  manjicr  adtninistcr 
the  ordinance  to  his  associates  ? 

We  shall  best  understand  what  was  done,  if  we  can  first  fairly  put  ourselves 
into  sympathy  with  the  state  of  mind  out  of  which  action  grew.  And  we  shall 
find  that  the  single  special  advance  which  Mr.  Smyth  had  made  in  the  brief 
interval  of  time  between  his  leading  his  people  into  non-fellowship  with  the 
"ancient"  church,  —  the  reasons  of  which  were  set  forth,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
his  book  of  Diferences,  etc.  —  and  his  inspiring  them  to  dissolve  and  annul  their 
previous  organization,  and  covenant  together  upon  a  new  basis,  —  the  grounds 
of  which  were  explained  and  urged  in  his  book  called  The  Character  of  the 
Beafi,  etc.  —  consisted  in  his  seeming  to  himself  to  have  discovered  that  the 
baptism  which  they  all  had  received  in  childhood,  and  been  satisfied  with  in 
their  adult  years  down  to  that  hour,  was  inadequate  and  unscriptural  to  that 
degree  that  v;ith  a  good  conscience  it  could  no  longer  be  tolerated  as  the  fun- 
damental basis  of  their  Christian  organization.  It  was  suddenly  revealed  to 
him  that  that  rite  had  been  fatally  defective  in  two  respects. 

In  the  first  place,  it  had  descended  to  them  from  the  old  time  through  a 
false  church.  They  had  separated  themselves  from  the  Church  of  England 
because  of  its  unscriptural  qualities,  and  yet  they  had  not  separated  themselves 
from  the  baptism  of  that  Church ;  which,  in  the  last  analysis,  was  none  other 
than  the  very  baptism  of  that  Rome  which  they  regarded  as  the  mother  of 
harlots  and  the  fountain  of  spiritual  abominations  —  as  the  Antichrist  of  the 
Word  of  God.  As  Antichrist,  Rome  had  utterly  corrupted  and  destroyed  all 
the  ordinances  of  Christ.  So  far  as  she  was  concerned,  therefore,  true  baptism 
had  ceased  from  among  men.  And  since  the  Church  of  England  had  taken 
her  baptism  from  Rome,  that  must  also  be  null  and  void.  So  that  Smyth 
insisted  that  all  the  Separatists  :  '^ 


'-"  The  Character  of  the  Benjl,  etc.  p.  iv.  The  Sep- 
ar.ntists  who  did  not  follow  Smyth  took  the  ground  that 
the  lapsed  character  of  the  Church  of  Rome  could  not 


vitiate  its  baptism.  Thus  Francis  Johnson  replied  to 
him  on  this  point  [in  Clyflon's  Adveriifement,  etc. 
p.  30]  thus: 


[=7] 


must  cither  goc  back  to  England,  or  go  forward  to  true  baptifmc ;  &  al  that  dial  in  time  to 
come  fcparate  from  England  muft  fcparate  from  the  baptifmc  of  England,  &  if  they  wil  not 
fcparate  from  the  baptifmc  of  England  their  is  no  reason  why  they  fliould  fcparate  from  Eng- 
land as  from  a  falfe  Church. 

And  in  the  second  place,  since  infants  cannot  "confeffe  with  the  mouth,"  to 
"walli  an  infant  into  the  Trinity  is  not  true  Baptifme;"  true  Baptism  beins: 
"to  be  adminiftered  vppon  perfons  confeffing  their  faith  and  their  fins."'"' 
Whence  to  him  it  followed  that  he  and  all  his  company,  having  received  the 
ordinance  in  their  infancy,  were  still  without  it.  Hence  their  ecclesiastical 
estate  was  fatally  inadequate,  and  they  were  : '" 

a  falfe  Church  falfely  conftituted  in  the  baptifm  of  infants,  &  their  owne  vnbaptifed  eflate, 
.  .  .  and  their  feparation,  the  youngeft  &  the  fayrefl  daughter  of  Rome,  is  an  harlot :  For  as  is 
the  mother  fo  is  the  daughter. 

But  if  true  baptism  had  ceased  from  among  men,  it  was  useless  to  journey 
hither  and  thither  in  any  vain  hope  to  find  it.  The  only  way  in  which  the 
ordinance  in  its  purity  could  be  had,  must  be  to  originate  it  de  novo — if  script- 
urally  that  might  be  done.  Smyth  was  of  opinion  that  it  could  be.  And  after 
he  had  —  as  he  thought  —  done  it,  he  explained  his  views  on  the  subject,  as 
follows :  '==' 

Whereas  you  fay  they  [we]  have  no  warrant  to  baptize  themfelves,  I  fay,  as  much  as  you 
have  to  fct  vp  a  true  Church,  yea  fully  as  much :  For  if  a  true  Church  may  bee  erected  which  is 
the  moft  noble  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament,  then  much  more  baptifme  :  &  if  a  true  Church 
can  not  bee  ere6^ted  without  baptifme  .  .  .  you  cannot  deny  .  .  .  that  baptifme  may  alfo  bee 
recovered.  If  they  muft  recover  them  [the  Church  and  baptism]  men  muft  beginne  fo  to  doe 
&  then  two  men  joyning  together  may  make  a  Church  .  .  .  Why  may  they  not  baptize,  feeing 
they  cannot  conjoyne  into  Chrifl  but  by  baptifme  ?  .  .  .  Now/^r  baptifnig  a  mans  /elf  thcr  is 
as  good  imrranty  as  for  a  man  churching  himfclfe :  For  two  men  fmgly  are  no  ChurcH,  joyntly 
they  are  a  Church,  &  they  both  of  them  put  a  Church  vppon  them  felves,  fo  may  two  men  put 
baptifme  vppon  themfelves :  For  as  both  thofe  perfons  vnchurched  yet  have  powre  to  alTume 
the  Church  each  of  them  for  himfelf  with  others  in  communion :  fo  each  of  them  vnbaptized 
hath  powre  to  alTume  baptifme  for  himfelf  with  others  in  communion :  And  as  Abraham  & 
John  Baptift,  &  all  the  Profelites  after  Abrahams  example,  Exod.  12.  48.  did  adminifler  the 
Sacrament  vppon  themfelves;  fo  may  any  man  raifed  vp  after  the  Apoflacy  of  Antichrifl,  in 
the  recovering  of  the  Church  by  baptifme,  adminilkr  it  vppon  himfelf  in  communion  with 
others  .  .  .  And  as  in  the  Old  Teflament  every  man  that  was  vncleanc  walhed  himfelf:  every 
Treill  going  to  facrifice  waflicd  himfelfe  in  the  Lavcr  at  the  dore  of  the  Tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation :  which  was  a  type  of  baptifme,  the  dore  of  the  Church,  Tit.  2.  5.  Every  Mr.  of  a 
Familv  adminiftered  the  Paffover  to  himfelf  &  all  of  his  Family:  The  Preift  dayly  Sacrificed 


We  hold  that  the  r.aptifnie  of  Rome  wn<>  as  true 
Raplifmo,  as  circumcifion  in  ihc  Apoltalie  of  ll'racl  was 
true  circumcifion,  and  needed  not  to  be  renounced  and 
reiieaicd,  etc. 


1='  Tlie  Cfuiracter  of  tht  Bcajl,  etc.  p.  iii. 
'"  Ibid.  p.  vii. 
*^  Ibid.  pp.  58,  59. 


[28] 


for  himself  and  others:  A  man  cannot  baptifc  others  into  the  Church,  liimfclfe  being  out  of 
the  Church :  Therefore  it  is  Lawful!  for  a  man  to  baptize  himself  together  with  others  in  com- 
munion, &  this  warrant  is  a  picropiiory  for  the  practife  of  that  which  is  done  by  vs. 

The  question  mav  here  arise  why  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  people  in  this  emer- 
gency did  not  apply  to  the  Mennonites  in  Amsterdam  ;  who,  having  always 
repudiated  infant  baptism,  and  not  being  in  succession  from  any  Antichristian 
Church,  might  be  supposed  to  be  able  to  convev  the  ordinance  in  a  form  to 
them  unobjectionable.  I  suggest  four  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  the  differ- 
ence of  language  was  clearly  an  obstacle  to  that  full  interchange  of  thought 
which  might  be  desired  before  taking  such  a  step.'^  In  the  second  place,  it  is 
not  impossible  that  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  people  were  not  anxious,  could  it  be 
fairly  avoided,  to  invite  any  such  unpopularity  toward  their  new  departure,  as 
might  have  seemed  inevitable  were  they  to  solicit  the  Dutch  Anabaptism.  In 
the  third  place,  it  is  quite  probable  that  at  that  time  they  felt  themselves  too 
much  out  of  theological  sympathy  with  the  Mennonites,  to  be  able  in  conscience 
to  receive  the  most  intimate  rite  of  the  Gospel  from  them  ; '"'  and  this  the  more 
that  it  was  one  of  their  chief  arguments  against  infant  baptism,  that  infants 
could  not  —  indispensably  —  assent  to  "the  true  Fayth."'"^  And  in  the  fourth 
place,  to  have  been  baptized  by  the  Mennonites  may  have  involved  joining 
their  church,  which  they  did  not  then  wish  to  do — preferring  to  be  a  church 
by  themselves.'"^ 

As,  then,  it  seemed  to  be  the  only  course  open  to  them,  and  as  Mr.  Smyth, 
at  the  time,  firmly  believed  that  it  was  a  course  which  they  had  undoubted 
Scriptural  right  to  take,  it  was  determined  that  the  lost  rite  of  a  pure  baptism 
—  unallo3'ed  by  infant  incapacity  to  receive  it,  on  the  one  hand,  or  by  Anti- 
christian inability  to  convey  it,  on  the  other  —  should  be  once  more  originated 
on  earth  by  them,  and  for  them.  The  first  step,  naturally,  was  properly  to 
clear  the  ground  of  all  rubbish  of  the  past.  This  was  done  by  formal  dis- 
avowal of  the  old  baptism,  and  express  dissolution  and  renunciation  of  their 
former  church  estate,  including  the  abdication  by  its  officers  of  all  their  func- 


'-*  When  a  few  months  later  [12  Mar.  1605]  a  portion 
of  Smyth's  company  were  in  correspondence  with  the 
Dutch,  they  added  to  their  letter  the  following  post- 
script [Original  MS S.  A»isterda»i]: 

Wee  have  written  in  our  owne  tonc;e  becaufe  wee  are 
not  able  to  expreffe  our  niyiids  in  anie  other,  and  fceins; 
you  have  an  interpreter.  And  wee  liave  bene  much 
greeved  fince  our  lall  conference  wiih  you,  becaufe  wee 
diflionoured  the  trulh  of  God  much  for  want  of  fpeach, 
in  that  wee  were  not  nblc  to  utter  that  coore  niealure  of 
knowledg  which  God  of  his  grace  bathe  given  us. 

'-■•  Tfw  Character  of  tlic  Beajf,  etc.  in  its  risuini  of 
opinion  [pp.  vii,  viiij  seems  to  make  it  clear  that  while 


Smyth  and  his  followers  had  advanced  somewhat  toward 
the  general  Mennonite  position  in  respect  "to  the 
Flesh  of  Christ,"  and  the  magistracy,  they  had  not 
then  adopted  their  distinctively  Arminian  views.  Hel- 
wys,  Murton  and  others,  who  subsequently  cast  Smyth 
out  of  the  Church  for  these  heresies,  seem  never  fully 
to  liave  adopted  them. 

>=«  Ibid.  54. 

'-^  This  seems  an  obvious  suejiestion,  and  1  have  met 
with  it  somewhere  in  the  literature  of  the  case,  but, 
bavins  mislaid  the  citation,  I  am  now  unable  to  recall 
the  source. 


[-'9] 


tions  and  official  character.  They  seem  to  have  agreed  together,  and  declared, 
that  they  were  no  longer  members  of  Christ's  Church  ;  no  longer  baptized 
people  ;  no  longer  pastor,  deacons  and  llock  ;  but  simply  individual  believers 
desiring  church  fellowship  and  privilege  according  to  a  new  manner  which  their 
more  enlightened  consciences  could  approve.  That  such  a  step  was  inevitable 
to  their  principles,  lies  on  the  face  of  thcm.''^  'I'hat  it  was  actually  taken,  we 
have  three  credible  witnesses.  Richard  Clyfton,  who  was  resident  in  Amster- 
dam at  the  time,  and  whose  calm  and  candid  character,  as  evidenced  in  his 
books,  is  fully  endorsed  by  Gov.  Bradford, '"'  says:"° 

After  this,  they  diffolved  their  Church  (which  before  was  conioj-ned  in  the  fellowfliip  of  the 
Gofpcl  &  profefibion  of  the  true  fayth)  &  I\Ir.  Smyth  beitis;  Pajlor  thereof,  gave  aver  his  office,  as 
did  alfo  the  Deacons,  and  devifed  to  enter  a  new  communion  by  renouncing  their  former  bap- 
tifme,  and  taking  upon  them  an  other,  etc. 

John  Robinson,  long  familiarly  acquainted  with  all  parties  to  the  transac- 
tion, thus  describes  it :  "' 

Which  was  [/.  e.  the  procefs  of  reorganizing  the  church,  etc.]  as  I  have  heard  from  thcmfelves, 
on  this  manner :  M.  Smyth,  M.  Ileluiffe,  and  the  reft,  having  utterly  diffolved  and  difclaimed 
their  former  church  Jlate  and  miniflry,  came  together  to  erect  a  new  church  by  baptifm,  etc. 

And  Richard  Bernard,  writing  within  a  twelvemonth  of  what  took  place, 
says :  '^ 

By  this  trick  is  he  [Smyth]  difpaflored,  and  is  but  among  them  as  a  private  perfon,  till  he  be 
again  eletted;  this  is  moll  true  :  And  thus  hath  he  bcene  off  and  on  in  the  miniflcrie  two  or 
three  times.  He  was  made  minifter  by  Eilhop  Wickam:  that  by  and  by  in  Brownil'me  lie 
renounced,  &  was  made  miniller  by  Trades  men,  and  called  himfclfe  The  Pastour  of  the 
Church  at  Gainsbrough :  this  hath  he  loft;  againe  by  his  fe-baptifticke  way  till  he  be  chofen 
againc.'33 

Standing  thus  together  as  a  company  of  private  persons  seeming  to  them- 


128  Ibid.  vii. 

'^'^  Dialogue.    Young,  etc.  453. 

^'^  Pica/or  Ill/ants,  etc.  v. 

^^^  0/ Religious  Coitmitnion,  &\c.  Works  (ed.  1S51), 
iii:  t68. 

"-  Plaint  EuicUnces,  etc.  20. 

'•"A  closer  acquaintance  with  this  fact 'would  have 
saved  frequent  inconclusive  reasoning.  Thus  the  Chi- 
cago Stattdtird  of  i  July,  iSSo,  in  an  editorial  to  which 
I  have  already  referred,  said: 

In  the  company  was  another  minister  besides  him- 
self, Thomas  Helwys,  who  had  the  same  power  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinance  which  Smyth  had.  Kiich  could 
administer  the  ordinance  to  the  other,  and  no  culling 
of  the  knot  wr.uld  be  called  for.  Indeed,  in  such  cir- 
cumstances,  the  resort  to  such  a  proceeding  as  llie 


solemn  baptizing  of  himself  by  Mr.  Smyth,  in  order  to 
qualify  himself  to  baptize  the  rest,  is  so  irrational  and 
absurd  as  to  seem  out  of  the  question  in  the  case  of 
persons  such  as  [ohn  .Smyth  and  Thomas  Helwys  are 
upon  all  hands  admitted  lo  have  been 

Tlie  following  considerations  impair  the  usefulness 
of  the  above  remark,  viz. :  (1)  Smyth  had  laid  down 
his  ministry  for  the  second  time,  and  had  not  yet  been 
made  a  minister  again  ;  (2)  Helwys  up  to  this  date  had 
never  been  a  minister;  (%)  if  both  had  been  and  re- 
mained ministers,  it  would  have  been  indeed  an  in- 
credible absurdity  for  cither  of  them — after  having 
denounced  their  old  baptism  and  church  estate  as 
fraudulent  and  false — to  have  proceeded  in  virtue  of 
an  official  character  solely  de|)endent  on  that  fraud  and 
falsehood,  to  administer  ministerial  acts. 


[30] 


selves  to  have  true  faith  and  desiring  baptism  and  church  fellowship,  it  was 
natural  that  all  should  turn  to  him  whose  restless  logic  had  created  the 
exigency,  for  deliverance  from  it.  John  Robinson  says  he  was  told  by  some 
of  them  that :  "there  was  fome  draining  of  courtefy  who  fliould  begin  " '^  — 
probably  because  John  Smyth,  with  all  his  forwardness,  was  essentially  a  truly 
modest  and  humble  man,'-^  who  would  be  very  likely  at  such  a  time  to  turn  to 
Helwys  or  Murton  '^^  and  urge  one  of  them  to  act  for  all.  But  all  looked  with 
expectancy  toward  him.  And  so  he  went  forward.  What  he  did  is  to  be 
determined  by  testimony  —  which  does  not  appear  to  have  begun  to  be  con- 
flicting until  more  than  a  century  and  a  quarter  had  passed  away. 

I  have  shown  elsewhere'"  that,  at  this  time,  these  English  immigrants  seem 
to  have  mostly  lived,  and  assembled,  over  on  the  southeast  side  of  Amsterdam, 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  ReguUcis-poort.  This  was  very  near  to  the  then 
city  wall,  and  to  the  mouth  of  the  Amstd ;  and  I  think  of  Smyth  and  his  com- 
pany as  now  meeting  a  short  distance  outside  the  fortifications  on  the  bank  of 
this  river,  or  some  little  affluent,  for  the  performance  of  their  solemn  service. 
I  am  the  more  persuaded  of  this  from  the  fact  that,  as  no  prayer  preceded  the 
baptism,"^  it  seems  not  improbable  that  the  entire  religious  service,  with  the 
exception  of  the  rite  itself,  took  place  subsequently  in  the  room  where  they 
were  accustomed  ordinarily  to  worship.  Thus  gathered  together,  after  quietly 
waiting  until  all  with  one  consent  had  laid  the  duty  of  beginning  upon  himself, 
I  conceive  of  Mr.  Smyth  —  disrobed  sufficiently  to  allow  of  the  easy  washing 
of  the  upper  portion  of  his  body  by  himself  —  as  walking  into  the  stream,  lift- 
ing handfuls  of  water  and  pouring  them  liberally  upon  his  own  head,  shoulders 
and  chest,  until  clean  and  white  they  glistened  under  the  purifying  streams, 
solemnly  repeating  as  he  did  so  that  formula  which  the  Saviour  bequeathed 
to  his  people  to  the  end  of  time.  Then,  turning,  I  imagine  him  as  receiving 
his  associates,  Helwys,  Murton,  Pygott,  §eamer,  Overton,  Bromhead,  Jessop, 
Hodgkins,  Bywater,  Grindal,  Halton,  and  the  others,  not  forgetting  Mary 
Smyth,  Ann  Bromhead,  Ursula  Bywater,  the  Dickens  sisters,  and  the  rest, 
and,  one  by  one,  after  the  same  manner,   reinitiating  each   into    the  earthly 


IS*  Works,  iii:  i6S. 

133  He  who  reads  The  loft  booke  of  lohn  Smith, 
called  tlie  retractation  of  his  Errours,  and  tlie  con- 
firmation of  the  Truth  [the  only  known  copy  is  in  the 
library  of  the  Minster,  York,  Ens;.]  will  surely  believe 
■what  I  have  said,  as  to  this  engaging  element  in  the 
character  of  a  many-sided  man. 

'^That  John  Murton  was  in  full  sympathy  with 
what  was  done  is  clear  from  his  own  words [/}  Defcrip- 


tion  of  ivliat  God  hath  Prcdejlinatcd  Concerning' 
ilAiw,  etc.  (1620),  159]:  "Some  one  mull  Eaptife,  not 
being  yet  Pallor  or  Elder ;  For  there  mull  be  a  Flccke, 
before  a  Shepherd,  as  were  all  the  Churches  of  the 
Primitiue  time,  etc." 

12'  Con^^e,^iitionaiistn  as  Seen,  etc.  2S4. 

'28  "  Unto  which  [baptism]  they  alfo  afcribed  so  great 
virtue,  as  that  they  would  not  fo  much  as  pray  together 
before  ihey  had  it."    John  Robinson,  lyorks,  iii:  16S. 


[3'] 


king^dom  of  God.     And  I  have  ventured  here  to  introduce,  as  possibly  with 
considerable  exactitude  pictorially  representing  the  service  performed  by  Mr. 
Smyth  upon  himself,  a  tracing  from   an   ancient  en- 
graving representing  the   self-baptism   in  earlier  days 
of  a  "  Hemerobaptist." 

Turning,  now,  from  fancy  which  may  be  truth,   to 
fact  which  is  sure  to  be  truth,  I  present  the  following 
witnesses  in  evidence  that,  in  this  or  some  other  man- 
ner, John  Smyth,  on  this  occasion,  did  baptize,  first 
\v  himself,  and  then  his  followers. 

I.   Mr.  Smyth  himself  in   his  last  tract,  published 
after  his  decease,  seems  to  avow  and  justify  the  act :  "^ 

Seeing  ther  was  no  church  to  whome  we  could  Joyne  with  a  Good  confcicnce,  to  haue  bap- 
tifmc  from  them,  thcr  forwee  might  bapiife  our  selues  :  that  this  is  fo  the  lord  knoweth. 

And  again  : ''" 

Maister  Hel.  [wys]  saith  that  although  ther  be  churches  alreadie  eftabliihed,  minitlers 
ordained  and  facramcnts  adminiftered  orderly,  yet  men  are  not  bound  to  Joyne  to  thofe  former 
churches  etlablilhed,  but  may  being  as  yet  unbaptifed  baptil'e  them  felues  (as  "we  did)  and 
proceed  to  build  churches  of  them  felves,  etc. '4' 

2.  We  have  already  in  part  cited  Mr.  Ainsworth  as  to  the  point  of  affusion. 
Let  us  return  to  note  the  full  scope  of  his  evidence.     He  says  :  '*" 

Mr.  Sm.  anabaptized  him/elf  ruith  'water  .  .  .  Wherefore  reading  and  preaching  being 
joyned  togither,  as  baptifing  with  water  &  preaching :  he  that  condemns  the  one  outward 
action  becaufe  a  child  can  doe  it,  condemneth  alfo  the  other  by  the  like  reafon.  And  A/r.  Siii. 
ha%ing  thus  written  of  c]\\\Ax&n,  aud doon  to  him/cl/,  etc.  .  .  .  He  aiuibaptizcd  hiinself  m\(1  then 
anabaptized  others,  etc. 

3.  In  like  manner  let  us  revert  to  John  Robinson's  full  statement,  viz. :  '■'^ 

As  I  have  heard  from  themfelves  .  .  .  Mr.  Smyth  baptized  Jirji  him  f elf ,  and  next  Mr.  //<•.'- 
wiffe,  and  fo  the  rejt,  making  their  j^articutar  confelTions.  Now  to  let  pafs  .  .  .  his  Ihiptizing 
him/elf,  which  was  more  than  Chrift  himfelf  did,  Matt.  iii.  14:  I  demand  into  what  church  he 
entered  by  baptifm,  etc. 

4.  Richard  Clyfton  (a  present  witness)  devotes  large  space  and  long  argu- 
ment to  the  matter,  I  cull  sentences  here  and  there,  only,  sampling  the 
squareness  of  the  testimony  which  he  gives  as  to  the  fact,  viz.  :  '** 


'*  The  tajl booke  of  tolm  Smith,  etc.  37. 

"Vi/a'.  37. 

'*'  Compare  with  this  the  confession  of  Smyth  and 
his  sympathizers,  when,  in  i6o<),  seeking  admission  to 
the  Mcnnonite  Church  in  Amsterdam: 

"qui  hunc  errorem  fuum  agnofcunt,  ejus  que  poen- 
itentiae  aguut,   viz. :   quod  incoeperint    fe   iplbs   bap- 


tizare,  contra  ordinem  a  Chrifto  conftitutum,  etc. 
[Autograph  MS.  Meiinonite  Archives  A msterdttm. 
Evans  |i:  209]  gives  this  in  an  English  translation.] 

'*'  Defence,  etc.  6g,  S2. 
"••'  ICarks,  iii:  lOS. 

"*  Ptea  far  ///fauis,  elc.  (1610),  pp.  177-9,  '^°t  ''^Si 
1S5,  186,  224. 


[ 


1  "> 


In  my  former  anfwcr  I  fayd  that  it  can  not  be  fliewed  that  any  man  did  ever  baptife  him 
felf  without  fpecial  commandcment  from  God,  etc.  and  you  thus  replic:  "I  fay,  as  much  as 
you  have  to  fct  up  a  true  Church,"  wherein  you  anfwere  not  directly  to  the  point,  but  fliift  it 
of,  with  faying  that  you  have  as  much  power  to  fet  vp  baptifme,  or  baptife  your  selfe,  as  we  to 
fet  vp  a  Churcii :  for  fuppofe  lue  have  not  this  paivcr  to  fet  vp  a  Church,  then  ho7a  is  your  action 
of  baptifing  your  felfe  iuflificd?  .  .  .  You  muft  bring  like  warrant  from  the  Scripture,  that  jv« 
being  vnbaptif-ii,  may  baptife  your  felfe,  or  els  .  .  .  your  baptifme  prove  but  a  vayne  fanfie  .  .  . 
\iy(ni  that  baptife  your  jf//"  (being  but  an  ordinary  man)  may  this  do,  then  may  an  other  do  the 
like,  and  fo  every  one  baptife  himfclfe  .  .  .  Confider  you  that  are  fo  barren  of  proof  for  the 
admi>iijlring  of  Baptifing  to  your  felf,  that  you  can  not  fliew  one  good  reafon  to  warrant  it  to  be 
lawful  .  .  .  And  fo  Mr.  Smyth  loas  a  Church,  when  he  baptifed  hinifelf  which  is  abfurd  to 
think  .  .  .  Then  I  pray  you.  Sir,  refolvc  me  how  you  can  baptife  your  fe!f  into  the  Church,  being 
w// ty //,  yea,  and  where  there  was  no  Church?  Or  how  could  you  baj^tife  others,  your  felf 
being  out  of  the  Church  ?  .  .  .  Seing  you  have  already  chaunged  your  mind  again  concerning 
your  baptifing  of  your  self.  .  .  In  that  you  baptifed  your  felfe,  and  others,  \i\x\\o\i.X.  lawful 
calling,  etc. 

5.  In  16 10  an  able  reasoner  now  known  to  us  only  by  the  initials  of  "I.  H." 
prefixed  to  his  book,  published  in  London  A  Dcfcription  of  the  Chvrch  of 
C/irifl,  etc.,  ivith  foi?ie  Oppofit'ious  and  Aufwers  of  Defetice  .  .  .  againfl  certaine 
Anahaptiflicall  and  Erroniovs  Opiniotis  .  .  .  inaintaificd  and  practfed  by  one 
Maiflcr  fohn  Smith  .  .  .  and  a  Co??ipanie  of  EnglifJi  People  with  him  now  at 
Amfterdatn  in  Holland,  whome  he  hath  there  with  himfelfe  Re-baptifed.^^^  This 
writer  says : 

I  pray  you  tell  vs  one  thing  Master  Smith  ? 

By  7ohat  rule  baptifed  you  your  felfe  ?  What  worde  or  example  had  you  for  that  in  all  the 
Scriptures.'  Doe  you  afifirme  the  baptifme  of  children  to  be  the  marke  of  the  Beaft,  becaufc, 
you  fay,  there  is  no  word  nor  example  in  all  the  Scripture,  to  prouc  that  they  may  be  baptifed: 
And  yet  durfl  you  prefume  without  either  word  or  example,  to  baptife  yo7ir felfe.  If  you  go 
about  to  proue  that  lawful  which  you  hauc  done,  by  any  word,  or  example  in  the  Scripture,  I 
fay  you  cannot  fet  one  Hep  forward  to  that  purpofe,  but  you  mufl  allow  thereby  the  baptifme  of 
Children.  I  maruell  you  did  not  prcuent  this  olDie6f  ion :  which  wil  be  as  hard  a  bone  for  you 
to  gnaw  vpon,  as  you  thinke  the  baptifme  of  Children  is  to  vs.  It  was  wonder  you  wold  not 
receiue  your  baptifme  firft,  from  fome  one  of  the  Elders  of  the  Dutch  Anabai^tifts:  but  you 
will  be  holyer  then  all,  a>tdfee  hozi'  you  ha  tie  marred  all. 

6.  In  1623  "  Edmond  Jeffop,  who  fometime  walked  in  the  faid  errors  with 
them,"  printed  in  London  his  Difcovcry  of  the  Errors  of  the  Englijh  Anabap- 
tiJIs,  etc.     In  this  he  thus  speaks  :  '^* 

Mr.  Smith  baptized  himfelfe  firfl,  and  then  Mr.  Helwis,  and  lohn  Morton,  with  the  reft. 

If  I  fliould  now  demand  of  you  your  warrant,  for  a  man  to  baptize  himfelfe ;  I  much 
maruell  where  you  would  findc  fuch  a  pra(5\ife  in  all  the  New  Teftament  of  Chrift;  I  am  fure 
it  would  be  a  tafke  too  hard  for  you  to  find. 

'"4°.  pp.  viii,  120  [Bodleian.  (Tanner.  196.)]  p.  23.        |        ""4'^.  pp.  xii,  104.  [Bodleian.  (15.  4.  7.  Line.)]  \->.  65. 


[33] 

7-  Lubbert  Gerrits,  a  Mennonite  minister,  writing  from  Amsterdam  to  tlie 
Church  at  Leeuwarden  early  in  1610,  referring  to  this  case  of  Smyth,  calls  it'*' 
"the  act  of  baptizing  by  which  he  has  baptized /lim/c//.'" 

8.  Another  witness  whom  we  have  already  seen  to  have  a  considerable 
familiarity  with  the  subject,  deserves  special  examination.  It  is  Richard 
Bernard  in  his  Plaine  Euidcnces :  etc.  directed  againjl  Mr.  Ainfworth  the  Scpa- 
ratijl,  and  Mr.  Smyth  the  fc-baptijl,  etc.  I  cite  a  sentence  here  and  there 
directly  to  the  point  before  us  :  "* 

Notorious  aftes,  wee  may  reade,  haue  made  men  remarkable,  and  haue  gotten  them  names 
and  titles  for  a  memoriall  of  the  facts  and  deeds  done ;  why  fliould  not  hec  [Smyth]  then 
obtaine  what  worthily  hee  hath  deferued  ?  hee  is  Anabaptijlicall,  for  rebaptization ;  and  he  is  a 
Sc-baptiJ},  becatife  hee  did  baptife  hivifelfe  .  .  .  Mr.  Smith  did  baptife,  and  was  not  before  by  his 
own  iudgment  &  profeflion  baptifed ;  fo  a  perfon  vnbaptifed  did  baptife :  and  therefore  it  is  no 
true  Sacrament  by  his  owne  doflrine  .  .  .  And  therefore  all  his  company  haue  receiued  by  him 
corruption  .  .  .  Hee  hath  (if  you  will  beleeue  him)  recouered  the  true  Baptifme,  and  the  true 
matter  and  forme  of  a  true  Church,  which  now  is  onely  to  be  found  pure  among  a  company  of 
Se-baptijls.  Mr.  Smith  will  hold  euer  this  word  (Se)  to  himfelfe ;  for  in  going  into  Brownifme 
hee  was  a  Separatift,  he  held  differing  opinions  from  them,  and  now  that  he  is  in  Anabaptifme 
hee  is  a  Se-baptift  .  .  .  Baptifme  (faith  he)  is  the  doore  into  the  Church  :  there  muftebe  then  a 
Church,  and  a  doore  into  the  Church.  I  afke  therefore  whether  the  vifible  Church  was  among 
them  or  no,  when  Mr.  Smith  did  baptife  himfelfe?  ...  As  one  falling  to  Anabaptifme,  leaning 
all  Churches  for  that  way,  and  entering  thereinto  by  baptifeing  of  himfelfe,  whereby  he  is  become 
Mr.  Smith  the  Anabaptiflicall  Se-baptift  .  .  .  [He  holds]  that  true  Baptifme  was  nowhere  to 
be  had  lawfully :  bccanfe  he  did  baptize  himfelfe  .  .  .  That  in  his  cafe  he  might  baptife  himflf 
and  fo  his  Church  be  a  pure  Church,  whence  men  may  fetch  true  baptifme,  but  lawfully  belike 
no  where  elfe.  Wofull  premifes,  miferable  conclufion :  errour  and  arrogancy  void  of  true  char- 
itie  .  .  .  Mr.  Smith  did  bapttfe  himfelfe  contrary  to  the  Scripture  (which  commandeth  one  to 
baptife  another,  Mat.  28.  18.)  and  contrary  to  all  examples  in  Scripture  ...  It  muft  needes 
then  be  a  falfe  baptifing,  with  which  all  the  reft  are  polluted,  etc. 

9.  So  much  for  witnesses  immediately  cognizant  of  the  facts.  There  are  at 
least  a  dozen  others,  nearer  and  more  remote  in  time,  and  circumstances,  who 
might  be  marshalled  to  testify,  but  I  will  only  here  further  refer  to  the  careful 
judgment  of  a  single  writer  —  one  who  has  the  great  advantage  of  being  an 
antiquary,  a  Dutchman,  and  a  Mennonite;  who  has  spent  his  life  in  the  Low 
Countries ;  who  has  the  official  custody  of  the  manuscript  remains  of  this  very 
controversy ;  and  who  has  for  many  years  been  a  diligent  and  intelligent  stu- 
dent of  the  history  of  the  Separatists  in  Holland  —  I  refer  to  Prof.  J.  G.  de 
Hoop  Scheffer,  of  the  Mennonite  College  in  Amsterdam.  In  a  memoir  lately 
read  before  the  Royal  Academy  upon  The  Browtiists  0/  Amsterdam,  and  pub- 


'*"  See  the  whole  letter,  translated  by  Mr.  Muller,  in 
Evans,  i :  2 11-213. 


'♦«4''.   pp.  xvi,  340  [C.  M.  (4135-  a-)].  PP-  '7.  'S.  '9i 
20,  30,  3'4  -3'S- 


[34] 


lished  within  the  present  year,  upon  the  phase  of  the  subjecj:  before  us  I^e 
says : ''' 

In  cen  plcchtige  godsdienstoefening,  waar- 


schijnlijk  in  October  1608,  bediende  hij  ecrst, 
na  afgelcgde  bclijdcnis  en  ten  aanschouwen 
van  alien,  den  doop  aan  zichzelven,  vervolgens 
aan  Helwys  en  daarna  aan  de  anderen,  zoo 
velen  't  begcerden  en  hun  geloof  beleden : 
ruim  cen  veertigtal. 


At  a  solemn  religious  service,  probably  in 
October.  1608,  after  making  public  confes- 
sion, in  the  sight  of  all  the  others,  he  [Smyth] 
performed  the  rite  of  baptism  upon  himself; 
after  which  he  baptized  Hehvys,  and  others 
who  followed  with  confession  of  faith  —  to 
the  number  of  about  forty. 


Here,  now,  we  have  first  an  antecedent  probability  growing  out  of  the 
avowed  opinions  of  the  parties  in  interest,  that  a  certain  course  would  be 
adopted,  and  a  certain  act  performed.  We  have  next  the  direct  declaration  of 
the  man  immediately  concerned,  that  that  act  did  take  place.  We  have  then 
the  corroborative  statement  of  seven  cotemporaries  to  the  like  effect.  And 
we  have,  further,  the  express  judgment,  to  the  same  end,  of  that  modern  scholar 
who  by  position,  culture  and  opportunity  has  the  best  means  to  reach  a  candid 
and  conclusive  decision.  All  these  unite  to  declare  that  John  Smyth  rebap- 
tized  first  himself,  and  then  his  company. 

And,  what  is  remarkable,  nobody  in  those  days  appears  to  have  denied,  or 
doubted,  that  he  did  thus.  Again  and  again  during  Smyth's  short  life-time,  and 
while  Helwys  and  IMurton  still  held  their  pens,  was  the  act  charged  upon  them, 
as  an  ecclesiastical  irregularity  needing  justification,  but  that  charge  seems 
never  to  have  been  met  by  any  attempt  to  deny  its  truth.  One  hundred  and 
twenty-five  years  later  good,  but  clums)-,  Thomas  Crosby  —  confessing  that  he 
had  never  seen  Smyth's  own  books,  which  "  are  not  to  be  met  with  "  —  sug- 
gested that  those  who  charged  him  with.Se-baptism  : "° 

writ  .  .  .  with  so  much  paffion  and  refentment,  that  it  is  not  unlikely  fuch  men  might  take 
up  a  report  againft  him  upon  flender  evidence,  and  after  one  had  publilhed  it  the  others  might 
take  it  from  him  without  any  enquiry  into  the  truth  of  it,  etc. 

Seventy-three  years  later  Joseph  Ivimey  improved  upon  Crosby's  suggestion 
sufficiently  with  confidence  to  declare  :  '^' 

There  is  no  doubt  but  this  silly  charge  was  fabricated  bv  his  enemies,  and  it  is  an  astonish- 
ing instance  of  credulity  that  writers  of  eminent  talents  have  contributed  to  perpetuate  the 
slander. 

Seven  years  later  still,  Adam  Taylor  attributed  it  to  misconstruction  : "' 


"°  77^  Brmu7ti!:ten  Te  Amstrrdatit  f;ed7irefide  den 
ecrstcn  Tijd  na  hnnnc  Vcstiging,  in  vcrbafid  met  het 
Ontstaan  van  de  Brocderschap  der  Baptisteit,  etc. 
Amsterdam,  iSSi.  8°.  pp.  176,  p.  104. 


^'^  History  of  En!:lish  Baptists,  etc.  (173S)  i:  97. 
^'•^  History  0/ English  Baptists,  etc.  (iSii)  i:  115. 
^^'"^Hisioryo/EngUJi  General  Baptists,  etc.  (1818) 
:8s. 


[35] 


We  may,  therefore,  presume,  that  the  report  of  Mr.  Smyth's  baptizing  himself  originated 
in  mistake :  and  Itas  been  perpetuated  by  those,  who  have  too  hastily  taken  up  a  report  against 
their  neighbour. 

In  our  own  time  —  since  so  many  original  data  for  judgment  have  been 
recovered  —  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Underhill  a  theory  has  been  advanced  that, 
inasmuch  as,  confessedly,  the  coinpany  originated  among  themselves  a  new 
bajDtism,  it  was  for  that  reason  that  they  were  called  Se-baptists :  "not  that 
each  one  dipped,  or  baptized  himself,  but  [that]  among  them  they  commenced 
the  practice." '"     So  reasoning  he  reaches  the  result :  "* 

I  mav,  therefore,  confidently  afifirm  that  the  charge  of  baptizing  himself  is,  with  respect  to 
Smith,  a  calumny,  but  arose  from  the  circumstances  referred  to.  In  no  other  way  can  we 
account  for  the  silence  with  respect  to  it,  observed  by  himself  in  his  writings,  and  [observed] 
in  those  of  his  friends. '55 

The  Chicago  Standard  has  gone  so  far  as  to  intimate  that  writers  in  Hol- 
land at  the  time  fell  into  this  misapprehension  :  '^* 

This  language  was  construed  by  hostile  writers  as  having  the  absurd  meaning  noticed 
above.  Something  to  the  same  effect  Mr.  Robinson  heard,  and  honestly  misconstruing  it,  reported 
it  as  what  he  had  thus  heard.  There  is  no  other  theorj-  of  the  matter  which  in  the  light  of 
candid  history  will  stand  the  tesu 

The  "  times  of  ignorance "  we  have  divine  sanction  to  "  overlook."  But 
it  is  hard  to  entertain  a  doubt  that,  in  view  of  the  fuller  and  weightier  evidence 
herein  adduced,  the  candor  of  Baptist  scholarship  must  henceforth  concede : 
(i)  that  this  was  no  more  a  case  of  immersion  than  of  sprinkling,  but  of  allu- 
sion ;  and  (2)  that  John  Smyth  did  aff use  first  himself,  and  then  his  company. 


The  remainder  of  this  story  may  be  brief.  All  testimony  agrees  that  but 
ver}f  few  months  elapsed  before  Mr.  Smyth  moved  on  to  another  plane  ot 
thought  and  action  ;  first  suspecting  and  then  affirming,  that  they  had  all  been 
wrong  in  holding  the  right  to  baptize  and  —  in  his  own  phrase  —  to  church, 
themselves ;  so  that,  really  : '" 

their  new-washed  companie  is  no  true  church,  and  that  there  cannot  be  in  a  church  the 
adminillratio  of  baptifme  &  other  ordinances  of  Chrift,  without  Officers;  contrarie  to  his 
former  judgment,  practifc  &  writings. 

Some  modification  of  his  theological  views  accompanied  and  exaggerated 


>»Dr.  E.  B.  Underhill,  in  Watchman,  14  July,  1S53. 
>'••*  Ibid. 

'"  Prof.  S.  S.  Cutting  {Historical  Vindicaiiofis,  etc. 
(1839)  60]  takes  the  same  view. 


iM  1  July,  iSSo. 

'='  Clyfton  says  [Plea  for  Infants,  etc.  vi]  that  tliis 
was  the  account  given  him  at  the  time,  by  some  of 
Smyth's  church. 


[36] 


this  difficulty,  which  soon  constrained  the  majority  of  the  new  church,  under 
the  lead  of  Helwys  and  Murton,  sorrowfully  to  excommunicate  Smyth  and 
twenty  or  thirty  who  thought  with  him.  We  have  the  statement  made  public 
by  that  majority  as  the  justification  of  their  course,  as  follows  :'^* 

That  it  may  not  be  thought  we  lay  imputations,  or  caft  reproaches  upon  Mr.  Smyth 
unjuftly,  we  thought  good,  in  fliort,  to  fet  downe  fonie  of  the  errors  whereinto  he  is 
fallen,  etc. : 

1.  That  concerning  Christ  the  firtl  matter  of  his  flefli,  he  affirmed  that  all  the  Scriptures 
would  not  prove  that  he  had  it  of  the  virgin  Mary,  but  his  fecond  matter  which  he  fa>d  was 
his  nourifliment,  that  the  Scriptures  proved  he  had  of  Mary,  thus  making  Christ  to  have  two 
matters  of  his  flcfh. 

2.  That  men  are  juflified  partly  by  the  righteoufnefs  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith,  partly 
by  their  own  inherent  righteoufnefs. 

3.  That  Adams  fm  was  not  imputed  unto  any  of  his  poflerity,  &  that  all  men  are  in  the 
eftate  of  Adam  in  his  innocencie  before  they  commit  actual  fm;  &  therefore  infants  were  not 
redeemed  by  Christ,  but  as  the  Angels  &  all  other  creatures. 

4.  That  the  Church  &  Miniftcrie  muft  come  by  fucceffion,  contrary  to  his  former  profeffion 
in  words  &  writings,  &  that  by  a  fuppofed  fucccfllon  he  cannot  flicw  from  whom,  nor  when,  nor 
where. 

5.  That  an  Elder  of  one  Church  is  an  Elder  of  all  Churches  in  the  world. 

6.  That  Magiflrates  may  not  be  members  of  Christs  Church,  and  retain  their  magiflracy. 

Smyth  and  his  friends,  thus  excluded,  asked  a  church  of  the  Mennonites  to 
receive  them,  and  a  parley  followed.  It  appears  to  have  been  objected  against 
them  that  they  had  unwarrantably  baptized  themselves.  Whereupon  the  fol- 
lowing document,  still  preserved  in  the  archives  of  that  church  in  Amsterdam, 
was  signed  by  sixteen  men,  and  as  many  women,  and  offered  to  meet  that 
difficulty : ''' 


Nomina  yTinglorum  qui  hunc  errorem  suum 
agnofcunt,  cjufque  pcenitentiae  agunt,  viz.: 
quod  incoeperint  fe  ipfos  baptizare,  contra 
ordinem  a  Chrifto  conftitutum;  quique  jam 
cupiunt  hinc  verae  Chrifli  ecclefiae  veniri, 
ea  qua  feri  poffit  expeditione.  Cupimus  un- 
animiter  votum  hoc  noHrum  ecclefiae  signifi- 
cari.'^o 


The  names  of  the  Englidi  people  who  con- 
fefs  this  their  error,  and  repent  of  the  fame, 
viz. :  that  they  undertook  to  baptize  them- 
felves  contrary  to  the  order  laid  down  by 
Chrifl ;  who  now  therefore  defire  to  get  back 
into  the  true  Church  of  Chrifl  as  fpeedily  as 
may  be.  We  are  of  one  accord  in  the  desire 
to  have  this  our  wifli  signified  to  the  Church. 


'M  A  Declaration  of  the  Faith  of  EttgliJJi  People 
remaining  at  A  mflerdam  in  Holland,  etc  [Helwys's 
company]  (161 1)  p.  16.  Tliis  must  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  anoilitr  little  book  iirinted  the  year  fol- 
lowing with  precisely  the  same  title,  witii  the  exception 
of  the  addition  :  "being  the  remainder  of  Mr.  Smyths 
Companic,  etc."  I  have  conie  to  the  knowledge  of  no 
copy  of  either  except  those  preserved  in  the  library  of 
the  Minster  at  York,  Eng. 


i5»  I  have  copied  from  the  original  MS.  Evans  [i : 
244]  has  printed  it. 

'•"'The  names  were  these.  A  comparison  of  my  list 
with  that  of  Dr.  Evans  [i:  244]  will  show  that  I  have 
read  some  of  iheni  difierently  from  him. 

Names  of  Men  Hugo  Bromhead,  Gervase  Nevill, 
John  Sjiiylh,  Thomas  Canadyne,  Kdsvaid  Hawkins, 
John  Hardie,  Thomas  Pygott,  Francis  Pygott,  Rubert 
Staveley,  Alexander  Fleniiuge,  Alexander  Hodgkins, 


or  The 

OF 


[37] 


Thereupon  Helwys,  Murton,  William  Pygott  and  Thomas  Seamer,  under 
date  of  12  March,  1609,  appealed  to  the  Mennonite  church  thus  addressed, 
begging  them  : '" 

as  you  love  the  lord  and  his  truth,  that  you  will  take  wife  councell,  and  that  from  Gods 
Word,  how  you  deale  in  this  caufe  betwixt  us  and  thofe  that  are  jultlie  for  their  finnes  call  out 
from  us. 

After  various  considerations  designed  to  persuade  the  church  to  be  cautious 
in  such  an  endorsement  of  the  new  applicants  for  their  fellowship  as  should 
react  against  those  who  had  felt  constrained  to  cast  them  out,  they  con- 
clude : 

Thus  befecching  the  lord  to  perfuade  your  hart,  that  your  hand  may  not  be  againft  his 
truth,  and  againll  us  the  lords  unworthie  witneiTes,  wee  take  our  leave,  commending  you  to  the 
gracious  prote(5lion  of  the  Almightie,  etc. 

The  Mennonites  appear  to  have  been  moved  by  this  appeal,  and  took 
counsel  of  a  sister  church  in  the  capital  of  Friesland.  Considerable  delay  and 
several  letters  followed,  all  ending  in  the  failure  of  the  movement.'^^ 

Jan  Munterwas  a  friendly  Waterlander.  He  owned  a  "Great  Cake-House," 
or  baker}-,  which  appears  to  have  had  some  sort  of  annex,  where  men  might 
both  meet  and  lodge.  And  in  the  hinder  part  of  this  John  Smyth  now  seems 
to  have  taken  refuge  with  his  little  band.'"  There  was  a  curious  resemblance 
between  his  spiritual  history  and  that  of  Roger  Williams,  who  went  from  a 
Congregational,  through  a  Baptist  Church,  to  be  and  remain  a  "Seeker"  for 
the  rest  of  his  days  3  and  Smyth,  "inquiring  after  a  new  way  of  walking,"'*^ 
and,  to  all  appearance,  unconnected  with  any  church  organization,  spent  here 
the  brief  remainder  of  his  earthly  life.  For  years  a  feeble  man,  in  the  summer 
of  1612  he  fell  sick  with  consumption.'^'     And  after  seven  weeks  of  increasing 


John  Grindal,  Salomon  Thomson,  Samuel  Halton, 
Thomas  Dolpliine,  Mathew  Pygott.     (i6.) 

.Vnmes  of  Wotnen.  Ann  I'.romhead,  Jane  South- 
worth,  Mary  Smyth,  Joane  Halton,  Allis  Ariifield,  Isa- 
bel! Thomson,  Marparet  Staveley,  Mary  Grindal,  Allis 
Pycott,  Margaret  Pygott,  Betteris  Dickens,  Mary 
Dickens,  .Mlis  Paynter,  Allis  Parsons,  Joane  Briggs, 
Jane  Organ.     (i6.) 

"•  I  have  copied  from  the  original  MS.  in  the  ar- 
chives at  Amsterdam.  Dr.  Evans  [i:  209]  has  printed 
the  letter,  but  —  I  suppose  forgetting  that  new  style 
had  been  adopted  in  Holland  in  1583,  and  that  the 
year  (which  still  in  England  began  25  Mnr.)  there 
began  i  Jan.  —  has  misstated  the  dale  as  12  Mar.  1610. 

""'-Dr.  Evans  [i:  21S]  on  the  other  hand  represents 
the  application  as  having  been  successful.  But  Prof. 
SchefEer  in  a  letter  before  me  intimates  that  Dr.  E.  has 


confounded  this  with  a  later  request  which  was  com- 
plied with : 

This  assertion  of  Dr.  E.  is  quite  hypothetical,  and 
not  at  all  probable  ;  the  records  mention  no  other  union 
with  the  English  than  the  union  (after  Smyth  had  been 
dead  some  three  years]  of  1615. 

"'^  Prof.  Muller,  in  Evans,  i:  220. 

"'''  Clyfton,  Plea  for  In/ants,  etc.  vi.  So  in  1609, 
Ainsworth  said  [De/etice,  etc.  121I  that  God's  hand 
"as  it  is  heavie  upon  him  already  in  giving  him  over 
from  error  to  error  .  .  .  fo  wil  the  fame  hand  ftil  follow 
him  unto  furder  judgment  if  he  do  not  repent." 

'"■'Bradford  says  [Young,  Dialogue,  etc.  451]  "he 
[Smyth]  died  there  [/.  <r.  in  Amsterdam]  of  a  consump- 
tion, to  which  he  was  inclined  before  he  came  out  of 
England." 


[3«] 


deliility.'**  i  September  of  that  year  he  was  borne  from  the  Cake-House  to  his 
burial  in  the  A^icioc  Kcrk.^" 

Late  in  1614  what  remained  of  his  company  renewed  their  old  request 
for  admission  to  one  of  the  Mennonite  churches,  which,  20  Jan.  1615,  was 
granted.  For  a  short  season  a  separate  English  service  was  held  by  them  in 
the  Cake-House,  but  it  was  not  long  before  they  became  absorbed  among  the 
Dutch,  leaving  no  trace  of  separate  existence  visible  to  history,'*" 

And  so  endeth  the  true  story  of  John  Smyth  the  Se-baptist,  as  told  by 
himself  and  his  contemporaries. 


'™  His  company  said  [Declaration,  etc.  44] : 

It  plenfed  the  lord  at  the  legth,  to  vifit  him  with 
ficknes,  and  wiih  a  difeafe  wherby  he  perceived  that  liis 
life  fliould  not  long  continue;   yet  remayning  about 


seaven   weakes,   during  the  which  space,  he  behaved 
liiml'elf  Christianlike. 

""  I!urial  Records,  Niewe  Kerk,  sub  date. 

108  Prof.  MuUer,  as  cited  by  Evans,  \:  220-223. 


CHAPTER   II. 

AN    INQUIRY    WHETHER    DIPPING    WERE  A  NEW    MODE    OF    BAPTISM    IN    ENGLAND 

IN,    OR    ABOUT,   1 64 1. 

N  the  year  1876  Mr.  Robert  Barclay  published  in  London  the  judg- 
ment that  "  the  practice  of  immersion  appears  to  have  been  intro- 
duced in  England,  on  the  12th  September,  1633."'  Four  years  later 
I  ventured  to  print  a  somewhat  similar  opinion,  supported  by  such  evidence  as 
was  then  in  my  possession,"*  My  statement  was  at  once  challenged  by  Baptist 
reviewers.  One  called  it  ''an  amazing  error."  ^  Another  declared  that  "the 
unbroken  tradition  among  Baptists  is  in  favor  of  their  immersion."  *  Another 
knew  "of  no  reason  to  doubt  that  they  [Baptists]  all  were  immersed  before  the 
year  1641."^  And  still  another  insisted  that  "no  fact  in  history  is  more  cer- 
tain than  that  they  have  always  immersed."  ^ 

I  did  not  know  very  much  about  the  subject  then.  But  I  have  since 
studied  it  as  opportunity  has  offered  ;  and  I  now  propose  to  set  down  the 
results  of  that  investigation. 

It  seems  very  safe  to  say  that  any  change  like  that  involved  in  making  con- 
science of  one  particular  form  of  the  administration  of  a  church  rite  over  other 
forms,  possible  and  actual;  must  —  with  human  nature  what  it  always  has 
been  —  provoke  difference  of  feeling,  and  the  expression  of  it.  And  since  the 
art  of  printing  was  discovered,  it  seems  equally  safe  to  decide  that  that  kind  of 
argumentation  would  leave  its  trace  upon  the  literature  of  the  time.  Were  any- 
thing of  the  sort  to  take  place  now,  it  would  breed  a  tremendous  discussion  in 
the  columns  of  the  religious  newspapers..  Two  centuries  and  a  half  ago  — 
nearly  or  quite  two  hundred  years  before  the  founding  of  journals  which  could 
have  been  so  employed  —  such  a  controversy  must  necessarily  have  been  car- 
ried on  through  the  medium  of  books,  pamphlets  and  broadsides.  We  may  lay 
it  down  then  as  certain,  that,  if  at  any  time  in  the  seventeenth  century  any 


^  Inner  Life  of  the  Relig.  Societies  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, etc.  73.  The  date  is  the  one  given  in  the 
Kiffm  MS.  as  that  of  the  founding  of  Spilsbury's 
church  in  London.     Ivimey,  i:   139. 

'  Cougregationaiism  as  Seen,  etc.  318. 


'  New  York  Exatniner  and  Chronicle,  19  Aug.  1880. 
<  Prof.  Heman  Lincoln,  D  D.,  Newton  Theo.  Sera, 
in  the  Boston  Watchman,  14  Oct.  18S0. 
^  Portland  Zion^s  Advocate,  28  July,  1880. 
«  Chicago  Standard,  i  July,  iSSo, 


(39) 


[40] 


question  arose  among  good  people  in  England  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  substi- 
tution of  immersion  for  affusion  or  sprinkling,  as  the  sole  mode  of  baptism  ; 
books,  pamphlets  and  broadsides  were  printed  about  it — for  and  against  — 
which,  if  still  in  existence  and  to  be  found,  would  give  us  in  the  most  authentic 
manner  ample  and  accurate  knowledge  as  to  what  was  done,  and  why  it  was 
done.  Such  literature,  however,  is  proverbially  ephemeral,  and  except  as  it 
may  have  been  preserved  in  some  extraordinary  way,  and  for  some  special  end, 
it  would  hardly  be  reasonable  to  anticipate,  at  this  late  date,  any  large  success 
in  its  recovery. 

But  it  so  happens  that  at  the  exact  time  when  this  question  of  immersion  — 
if  there  were  any  such  question  —  must  have  arisen,  Providence  raised  up  a 
man  whom  it  inspired  with  the  idea  of  gathering  together,  and  dedicating  to 
the  uses  of  the  future,  every  issue  of  the  J>ress,  of  whatsoever  sort  it  might  be. 
This  was  the  royalist  bookseller,  George  Thomason,  of  the  Rose  and  Crown, 
in  St.  Paul's  Churchyard.  It  appears  to  have  been  in  1641  that  the  idea  first 
forcibly  struck  him  that  there  would  be  both  interest  and  value  in  thus  collect- 
ing and  preserving  the  multifarious  publications  which  the  ferment  of  those 
new  times  in  Church  and  State  was  breeding  thick  and  fast.  He  seems  to  have 
begun,  retrospectively,  by  procuring  all  on  which  he  could  lay  his  hand  which 
had  seen  the  light  during  the  few  previous  months.  And  then  for  twenty  years 
—  and  what  years  they  were  !  —  down  to  1662,  he  made  it  his  business  to  let 
nothing  licensed,  surreptitious,  or  secret  escape  him.  He  even  copied  with  his 
own  hand  "  near  one  hundred  feveral  [manuscript]  pieces,  mofl  of  which,"  he 
says,  "were  on  the  kings  tide,  which  no  man  durft  venture  to  publifli  here  with- 
out the  danger  of  his  ruin."  This  wonderful  collection  he  arranged  chronolog- 
ically—  taking  "exact  care"  that  "the  very  day  is  written  upon  [the  title-page 
of]  mofl  of  them  that  they  came  out"  —  and  bound  in  2220  volumes  —  folio, 
quarto,  and  smaller,  according  to  the  size  of  their  contents  —  aggregating,  it  is 
estimated,  nearly  34,000  separate  publications.  It  is  a  curious  miscellany,  and 
the  chronological  necessity  of  it  makes  strange  bedfellows.  An  almanac  lies 
sandwiched  between  a  sermon  and  a  squib ;  a  treatise  on  turnips  may  crowd  an 
epithalamium  on  one  side  and  an  elegy  on  the  other ;  vulgar  and  nasty  "  Mer- 
curius  Philalethes"  leans  and  leers  between  John  Milton  and  Jeremy  Taylor; 
and  tracts  on  Church  Government,  engineering,  agriculture,  wine,  wool  and 
witchcraft,  maybe  looked  for  in  the  close  company  of  sailors'  songs,  catechisms, 
goodwives'  gossip,  round-head  rhymes  and  loyalist  lampoons.' 


'The  facts  and  ci;ations  in  this  description  are  taken 
from  Thomason's  preface  to  his  MS.  catalogue  of  his 
collection,  etc.     The  best  brief  published  account  is 


perhaps  that  in  E.  Edwards's  Memoirs  of  Libraries: 
including  a  Handbook  of  Library  Economy,  etc. 
(1859)  i:  455- 


[4<] 


It  seems  a  curious  thing  that  no  English  Baptist  scholar  appears  to  have 
thought  it  worth  his  while  to  examine  consecutively  this  collection  —  now 
known  as  the  "King's  Pamphlets"^  in  the  library  of  the  British  Museum  — 
with  reference  to  the  question  under  discussion  ;  and  that  it  should  have  been 
left  for  an  outsider,  and  an  American,  to  undertake  it.  But  during  the  last 
winter  I  devoted  some  days  to  that  work,  and  was  rewarded  by  the  discovery 
of  no  fewer  than  one  hundred  and  eighty  separate  publications  bearing  directly 
upon  the  Baptist  controversy  ;  —  the  majority  of  which  were  printed  within  the 
first  ten  years  after  the  date  alleged  by  Mr.  Barclay  as  that  of  the  origin  of  the 
practice  of  immersion  in  England.  I  kept  a  register  of  my  findings,  with  their 
press  marks,  which  —  expanded  to  cover  the  remainder  of  that  century  —  I  add 
at  the  end  of  this  tract,  for  the  benefit  of  whomsoever  it  may  concern  ;  and,  to 
save  space,  I  shall  herein  cite  such  treatises  included  therein  as  I  may  have 
occasion  to  refer  to,  simply  by  their  author's  name,  or  the  first  word  or  two  of 
the  heading  of  such  as  are  anonymous,  with  their  number  in  that  list,  leaving 
the  reader  to  get  the  entire  title  from  the  Appendix. 

The  earliest  date  at  which  immersion  was  publicly  and  ofiicially  announced 
as  being  held  needful  by  English  Baptists,  was  i6  Oct.  1644;'  at  which  time 
appeared  The  Confcffion  of  Faith  of  ihofe  Churches  which  are  commonly  {though 
falfly)  called  Anabaptifls,  etc.  which  was  "fubfcribed  in  the  names  of  feven 
churches  in  London,"  by  fifteen  persons,  the  first  of  whom  was  William  Kifiin. 
The  XLth  article  is  as  follows,  viz. : '° 

That  the  way  and  manner  of  the  difpenfing  this  ordinance,  is  dipping  or  plunging  the  body 
under  water ;  it  being  a  figne,  mufl  anfwer  the  things  fignified,  which  is,  that  intereft  the  Saints 
have  in  the  death,  burial,  and  refurre6tion  of  Chrift :  And  that  as  certainly  as  the  body  is 
buried  under  water,  and  rifen  again,  fo  certainly  (liall  the  bodies  of  the  Saints  bee  raifed  by 
the  power  of  Chrifl,  in  the  day  of  the  refurrcSion,  to  reigne  with  Chrift.  [There  is  an 
appended  note :  The  word  Baptizo  fignifies  to  dip  or  plunge,  (yet  fo  as  convenient  garments  be 
both  upon  the  Adminiftrator  and  fubject,  with  all  modedy.)] 

The  practical  question  now  to  be  considered  is  whether  this  requirement  of 
dipping  had  been  accepted  from  the  rise  of  distinctively  Baptist  sentiments 
in  England,  or  whether  plunging  had  been  superinduced  upon  another  and 
different  earlier  practice ;  and,  if  so,  at  what  date.  And,  waiving  the  inquiry 
whether  there  had  been,  at  some  time  previous  to  1600,  Baptist  churches  in 
that  country  which  had  lost  visibility,  the  question  respects  such  Baptist 
churches  there  as  survived,  or  had  grown  up  between  that  year  and  the  period 


'Tl>ey  get  tliis  name  because  Gi;orgc  III.,  in  1762, 
spent  £300  in  making  a  present  of  the  collection,  after 
various  fortunes  and  perils,  to  the  British  Museum. 


"  This  is  the  dale  of  publication  endorsed  on  its  face 
by  Thomason. 
lOApp.  35,  p.  20. 


■[4=] 


of  the  publication  of  the  Confession  just  cited  —  that  is,  in  the  first  four  and 
forty  years  of  the  seventtenth  century. 

It  seems  to  be  conceded  on  all  hands  that  when  Hehvys  and  Murton 
recrossed  the  German  Ocean  from  Holland,  in  or  about  1612,"  the  church 
which  they  founded  in  Newgate  was  the  first  Baptist  church,  and  the  only  one 
then  in  England  in  that  century.  By  1626  we  can  trace  possibly  ten  others, 
making  eleven  in  all,  viz. :  those  in  London,  Lincoln,  Tiverton,  Salisburv, 
Coventry,'-  Stoney  Stratford,"  Ashford,  Eiddenden  and  Eyethorn  in  Kent,'* 
Canterbury,'^  and  Amersham  in  Buckinghamshire.'^ 

These  were  all  General  Baptist  churches ;  that  is  to  say,  they  more  or 
less  leaned  toward  Arminianism  in  their  theology ;  but  Crosby  took  pains 
to  declare '^  "that  this  difference  in  opinion  is  not  a  fufficient  or  realon- 
able  ground  of  renouncing  Chriftian  communion  with  one  another,"  and  so 
makes  no  distinction  between  them  and  the  Particular,  or  Calvinistic,  Baptists 
in  his  history,'^  It  seems  to  be  further  safe  to  conclude  —  from  their  own  lan- 
guage;'' from  the  practice  of  the  Dutch  Mennonites  with  whom  they  were  in 
fellowship;-"  from  the  concession  of  the  latest  and  most  learned  English  Bap- 
tist historian  ;-'  and  from  evidence  yet  to  be  presented  in  another  form  —  that 
these  Baptist  churches  did  not  practice  immersion.  Besides  these,  there  appear 
to  have  been  many  other  opponents  of  infant  baptism,  who  were  not  as  yet 
affiliated  on  that  basis,  but  w-ere  scattered  about  in  various  Puritan  churches, 
indistinguishably  from  their  other  members.  Thus  Crosby  says  "  that,  down 
to  1633,  the  Baptists  had  been  '"intermixed  among  other  Proteftant  DilTenters, 


"  It  used  to  be  said  that  this  was  in  1614  \_Taylor, 
i:  87;  Price,  Hist.  Mod.  Noitcon.  etc.  i:  519],  but 
Evans  [i:  224],  and  Skeats  [41 J  put  it  in  1612.  Per- 
haps this  latter  date  finds  confirmation  in  the  fact  that 
the  Kodleian  contains  a  presentation  copy  of  Helwys's 
Short  Declaration  to  the  kins;,  with  an  autograph  note 
[from  Helwys]  on  the  fly-leaf,  which  is  signed  "  Spit- 
tlefield  near  London."  .Assuming  that  such  a  copy 
would  be  sent  early,  if  at  ail,  the  date  of  the  book, 
which  is  1612,  would  seem  to  make  Helwys  resident 
near  London  at  that  date. 

'-  The  first  five  are  named  in  a  letter  of  C.  C.  Aresto, 
3  Nov.  1626,  in  Evans,  ii:  24,  26. 

"  Evans,  ii :  54. 

^*  Hid.  ii:  56;    Taylor,  i:  2S3,  281. 

^^  Ivimcy,\:  138;   Taylor,  i:  162. 

'0  Taylor,  i :  96. 

"  Crosby,  i:  173. 

"ivimey  also  [i:  137]  claims  that  General  P.aptist 
Church  at  Canterbury  referred  to  above,  as  a  regular 
Baptist  Church. 

'"Helwys  uniformly  calls  baptism  washing;  not  dip- 


ping: e.  g^.  [Short  Declaration,  etc.  p.  i6$]  "  Vou 
wil  have  infants  baptized,  that  is  -wajlied  with  water 
and  certen  words ;  "  [p.  139]  "  he  that  denies  wrt/y/Zwjf, 
or  is  not  wajlied  with  the  spirit  is  not  baptized,  and 
hee  that  denies  -wajliing,  or  is  not  wajlud  ivith  witer 
is  not  baptized;  bccaufi;  we  fee  the  Baptilme  of  Chrift 
is  to  bee  wajlud  with  water  and  the  Holie  Ghost." 

^  There  remain  in  the  archives  of  the  Mennonite 
Church  in  Amsterdam  si.-c  letters,  of  date  from  3  Jan. 
1624  to  5  June  1631,  manifesting  fellowship  and  asking 
■advice,  which  passed  between  these  English  churches 
and  the  Mennonites.  Prof.  Mailer  translated  tlie  let- 
ters, and  Evans  [ii :  21-51]  printed  the  translations. 

-'  Evans  [ii:  52]  says: 

In  this  opinion  [viz. :  that  these  churches  were  not 
immersionistj  Dr.  Muller  fully  agrees.  I'ut  was  it  so? 
We  cannot  pronounce  j)osit!ve!y,  but  are  bound  to 
confess  that  the  probabilities  are  greatly  in  its  favor. 
The  harmony  of  opinion,  and  the  anxiety  for  agree- 
ment, wliich  their  Dutch  brethren  manifested  in  the 
documents  laid  before  our  readers  (the  six  letters 
aforesaid],  would  jnore  than  warrant  this  conclusion. 


[43]- 

without  diftindlion,  and  so  confequently  fliared  with  the  Puritans  in  all  the 
perfecutions  of  thofe  times,"  and  later  historians"^  mainly  endorse  his  view. 
It  is  obvious  that  all  such  Baptists,  while  free  to  withhold  their  children  from 
baptism,  must  themselves  have  been  baptized  in  the  same  manner  as  had  all 
others  around  them,  and  could  not  as  yet  have  made  the  necessity  of  dipping 
an  article  of  their  faith.  This  brings  us  down  to  within  eleven  years  of  the 
issuance  of  the  first  distinctively  Immersionist  Confession  of  Faith,  above 
cited,  when  we  strike  the  formation  of  Mr.  Spilsbury's  Baptist  Church  in  Wrap- 
ping, by  amicable  separation  from  the  first  Independent  Church  of  Henry 
Jacob  and  John  Lathrop,  the  date  assigned  to  which  is  12  Sept.  1633.  It  has 
been  usual — I  think  I  may  say  nearly  universal  —  to  claim  that  this  church 
was  founded  on  the  issue  of  immersion,  and  began  with  that  form  of  baptism. 
Crosby  says  he  derived  his  information  from  "an  antient  manufcript,y«/V/ to  be 
written  by  Mr.  William  Kififin,  who  lived  in  thofe  times,  and  was  a  leader 
among  thofe  of  that  perfuafion."  "*  Conceding  the  genuineness  of  this  manu- 
script, and  its  value  in  testimony  —  both  of  which  might  be  open  to  question  — 
let  us  note  its  exact  words  as  to  the  point  before  us :  ^^ 

There  was  a  congregation  of  Protcflant  Dificnters  of  the  independant  Perfuafion  in  London, 
gather'd  in  the  year  1616,  whereof  Mr.  Henry  Jacob  was  the  firft  paftor;  and  after  him 
fuccecded  Mr.  John  Lathorp,  who  was  their  minifler  at  this  time.  In  this  fociety  feveral  per- 
fons,  finding  that  the  congregation  kept  not  to  their  firft  principles  of  reparation,  and  being 
alfo  convinced  that  baptijvi  was  not  to  be  adminijlrcd  to  infants,  but  fuch  only  as profejfed  faith 
in  Chrifi,  defired  that  they  might  be  difmiffed  from  that  communion,  and  allowed  to  form  a 
diflindt  congregation,  in  fuch  order  as  was  moft  agreeable  to  their  own  fentiments. 

The  church,  confidering  that  they  were  now  grown  very  numerous,  and  fo  more  than  could 
in  thefc  times  of  perfecution  conveniently  meet  together,  and  believing  alfo  that  thofe  perfons 
acted  from  a  principle  of  confcience,  and  not  obftinacy,  agreed  to  allow  them  the  liberty  they 
defired,  and  that  they  fliould  be  conflituted  a  diflinct  church ;  which  was  perform'd  the  12th  of 
Sept.  1633.  And  as  they  believed  that  baptifm  was  not  rightly  adminijlrcd  to  infants,  so  they 
looh'd  upon  the  baptifm  they  had  received  in  that  age  [/'.  e.  in  infancy]  as  invalid:  whereupon 
mofl  or  all  of  them  received  a  new  baptifm.  Their  minifler  was  Mr.  John  Spilfbury.  What 
number  they  were  is  uncertain,  becaufc  in  the  mentioning  of  the  names  of  about  twenty  men 
and  women,  it  is  added,  "  with  divers  others." 

In  the  vear  163S,  Mr.  William  Kiffin,  Mr.  Thomas  Wilfon,  and  others,  being  of  the  fame 
judgment,  were  upon  their  requeft,  difmiffed  to  the  faid  Mr.  SpiU  bury's  congregation. 

In  the  year  1639,  another  congregation  of  Baptifts  was  formed,  whofe  place  of  meeting  was 
in  Crutched-Fryars ;  the  chief  promoters  of  which  were  Mr.  Green,  Mr.  Paul  Iloblon  and 
Captain  Spencer. 

It  has  been  common  to  represent  that  Mr.  Spilsbury  at  this  time  went  over 


Taylor,  1 :  97 ;  Evans,  ii:  51.  '*i:  too.  ^  Ibid  i:  14S. 


•  [44] 

to  Holland  to  obtain  immersion  ;  which  of  course  would  settle  it  that  such  was 
the  method  adopted  by  this  church.  But  that  statement  seems  to  have  had  its 
origin  as  late  as  1669  from  Wall,  who,  in  his  Plain  Discovery,  etc.^*  mentions  it 
as  a  rumor  which  he  had  heard  some  years  before  in  London  that  Spilsbury 
visited  Holland  to  be  baptized  of  Smyth.  He  did  not  know  that  poor  Smyth, 
in  1633,  ^^^d  been  dead  more  than  twenty-one  years,  nor  that  lie  never  bap- 
tized by  immersion.  And  Hercules  Collins  (1691)  stigmatizes  the  w-hole  story 
as  "  absolutely  untrue,"  which  Crosby  reaffirms."' 

Moreover,  we  find  Mr.  Spilsbury  himself  earnestly  and  forcibly  arguing 
that,  under  certain  circumstances,  unbaptized  persons  have  the  right  to  orig- 
inate baptism  —  summing  up  with  this  conclusion,"^  viz. : 

By  all  which  it  appcares  that  baptizedneffe  is  not  effential  to  an  Adminiftrator,  and  therfore 
we  ought  not  to  flay  without  when  Chrift  the  Porter  opens,  and  invites  us  in. 

All  of  w^hich  would  be  very  unnatural  if  Wall's  story  were  true  of  him. 

So  that  we  are  remitted  to  the  language  of  Kifiin's  account  uncolored  from 
without,  for  our  knowledge  of  what  was  done.  Examining  it  carefully,  we 
discover  four  things,  viz. :  (i)  that  the  seceders  from  Lathrop's  church  had 
given  up  infant  baptism  ;  (2)  that  having  been  themselves  baptized  in  infancy, 
and  being  convinced  that  the  valid  ordinance  required  the  profession  of  faith 
in  Christ  on  the  part  of  the  recipient,  they  wished  to  be  again  baptized ; 
'(3)  that  "most,  or  all  of  them"  did,  therefore,  receive  "a  new  baptism  ;"  but 
(4)  there  is  neither  statement,  nor  hint,  that  this  new  baptism  was  by  immer- 
sion. I  have  found  no  such  hint  in  the  autobiography  —  edited  by  Orme  in 
1823"'  —  of  Kiffin,  who  curiously  says  nothing  whatever,  in  his  account  of 
himself,  of  his  becoming  a  Baptist ;  nor  in  his  memoir  published  by  Ivimey  in 
1833.^°  There  is  nothing,  then,  to  interfere  with  the  supposition  that  the  "  new 
baptism  "  received  by  this  church  was  by  affusion  ;  leaving  them  in  precisely 
the  same  situation  with  the  eleven  churches  already  traced,  which  had  preceded 
them.  I  do  not  now  afllrm  that  this  w^as  the  fact;  but  I  do  insist  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  statements  describing  the  origin  of  this  church  of  Mr.  Spils- 


20  No.  274,  p.  45. 

"Collins  [Believers  Bapiis7n,  etc.  No.  358,  p.  115] 
says : 

Could  not  the  Ordinance  of  Chrirt  which  was  loft  in 
the  Apoftafy  be  revived  .  .  .  unlefs  in  fiich  a  filthv  way 
as  you  falliy  affert,  viz  :  that  the  Knslifli  lja|/iifts  rc- 
ceivi'd  their  Baptifm  from  Mr.  John  .Sniytli?  It  is 
absolutely  untrue,  it  beinj;  well  known  by  fome  yet 
alive  how  falfe  this  Afleriion  is. 

And  Croj'by  [i:  103]  says  "  Mr.  Spilfbury  was  falfly 
reported xayxsM&^oxiG.  over  to  Holland  to  receive  bap- 
tifm  from  John  Smyth,"  etc. 


-'  Gods  Ordinance,  tJu  Saints  Friviltdge,  etc.  [No. 
81]  p.  10. 

-''  Remarkable  Paffazes  in  iJte  life  of  W.  Kijjin, 
•written  by  him/elf,  and  edited  from  t)u  original 
MSS.  with  notes,  by  \V.  Orme  (1S23),  etc.  S^.  pp. 
xxiv,  162.     [B.  M.  (1124.  e.  2.)] 

^  Tlie  Life  0/  Mr.  If.  Kiffin,  vfrjiards  of  sixty 
years  [1639-1701]  Pastor  of  t lie  Baptist  Church  Dev- 
onshire Square  London,  etc.  S^.  pp.  xiv,  110.  [B.  M 
(H26.  i.  13.)] 


[45] 


bury  inconsistent  with  such  a  theory,  provided  evidence  from  any  other  quarter 
shall  be  seen  to  favor  it. 

The  same  remark  is  true  of  the  church  in  CrutchedFriars  formed  in  1639. 
So  that  we  come  down  to  a  period  within  about  four  years  of  the  date  of  the 
first  English  Anabaptist  Confession,  without  finding  any  proof  of  the  existence 
of  immersion  in  England.  We  have  testimony  which  would  bear  interpretation 
in  its  favor,  were  that  made  necessary  by  other  considerations  ;  but  which  is 
equally  compliant  with  a  different  theory,  should  that  be  established. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  quality  of  the  suggestions  made  by  the  literature 
of  that  day,  as  to  the  question  before  us. 

I  begin  with  Anabaptisine' s  Mystcrie,  etc."  (1623)  which  contains  a  letter 
from  an  Anabaptist,  giving  his  reasons  for  leaving  the  Church  of  England.  He 
says : 

The  thing  wherein  I  differ  from  the  Church  of  England  is,  they  fay  at  their  waJJiing,  or 
baptizing,  in  their  Infancy,  They  are  mebers,  children  of  God,  and  inheritours  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  This  I  dare  not  beleevc ;  for  the  fcriptures  of  God  declare  that  neither  flefh  nor 
luajliing  the  ficfli  can  fave  .  .  .  The  confequcnce  of  this  is,  that  Infants  are  not  to  bee  bap- 
tized, nor  can  bee  Chriftians;  but  fuch  onely  as  confefle  their  Faith,  as  thefe  fcriptures  teach. 

Not  one  word  is  said  by  the  Anabaptist  of  any  question  about  the  inode  of 
baptism  —  nor  is  there  an  allusion  to  that  department  of  the  subject  in  I. 
P[reston]"s  five  and  fifty  pages  of  comment  on  this  letter.  Whence  I  infer 
that,  at  that  date,  the  mode  had  not  become  a  subject  of  discussion  in  England. 

In  1 641  R.  Greville  —  better  known  as  Robert,  Lord  Brooke  —  published 
a  Discovrse^'  in  which  having  occasion  to  refer  to  the  Anabaptists  of  that 
time  in  England,  he  said,  they : 

only  deny  Baptifme  to  their  Children  till  they  come  to  yeares  of  difcrction,  and  then  they 
baptize  them ;  but  iti  other  things  they  agree  with  the  Church  of  England. 

Nearly  at  the  same  time,  the  author  of  A  Difcovcry  of  2g.  ScHs,  etc."  thus 
describes  the  Anabaptists,  viz. : 

Thefe  men  fet  themfelues  wholly  againfl  the  Doctrine  of  John  the  Baptilf,  except  onely  in 
this  that  they  will  baptize  with  Water,  but  they  will  not  doe  it  whilejl  they  are  children,  till  they 
be  able  to  anfwer  for  themfelues.  They  write  themfelues  Members  and  Children  of  God,  and 
certaine  inheritours  of  the  Kingdome  of  Hcauen. 

These  testimonies  I  think  imply  that  down  to  the  time  when  they  were 
written  —  which  would  be  the  last  of  1640,  or  the  early  months  of  1641  — 


•*'  No.  2,  p.  2.    Crosby's  reprint  of  this  letter  [i:  134] 
is  not  minutely  accurate. 
**/!  Difcoirrft  opening  tht  Natvre  of  that  Epifco- 


pacie,  which  is  exercifcd  in  England,  etc. 
viii,  124.  [B.  M.  (E.  177.  [22.])J  p.  96. 
"3  No.  4,  p.  5. 


[46] 


public  attention  had  not  \-et  been  called  to  dipping  as  being  insisted  upon  by 
the  Baptists  as  a  fundamental  article  of  their  creed. ^* 

We  have,  in  the  same  year  (1641),  the  first  evidence  which  I  have  discov- 
ered that  the  subject  of  baptism,  as  connected  with  any  novel  mode  of  admin- 
istration, was  attracting  the  notice  of  observers ;  although  its  bearings  are  by 
no  means  clear.  It  occurs  as  an  appendix  to  a  very  brief  Vindication  of  the 
I3ook  of  Common  Praj'^er,  being  entitled  A  Difcovery  of  a  fort  of  people  called 
Re-baptifls,  lately  found  out  i7i  Hackney  MarfJi,  neere  London,  etc. :  '^ 

About  a  Fortnight  fince  a  great  multitude  of  people  were  met  going  towards  the  River  in 
Hackney  Marfli,  and  were  followed  to  the  water  fide,  where  they  all  were  Baptized  againe, 
themfelues  doing  it  one  to  another ;  fome  of  which  pcrfons  were  fo  feeble  and  aged,  that  they 
were  faync  to  Ride  on  Horfc-backe  thither.  This  was  wel  obserued  by  many  of  the  Inhab- 
itants living  there  abouts,  and  afterwards  one  of  them  Chriftened  his  owne  Child,  and  another 
tooke  upon  him  to  Church  his  owne  wife,  an  Abominable  Act,  and  full  of  groffe  Impiety. 

There  is  nothing  here  to  imply  immersion  more  than  affusion  as  the  mode, 
nor  is  it  easy  to  explain  the  latter  two  averments  into  consistency  with  anything 
likely  to  be  done  by  the  Baptists ;  so  that  I  am  inclined  to  dissociate  the  whole 
transaction  from  them,  and  look  upon  it  as  merely  an  incidental  illustration  of 
that  unsettledness,  and  disposition  toward  novelties,  which  were  about  that 
time  ^  beginning  powerfully  to  affect  the  English  mind. 

We  now  reach  the  first  of  several  very  decided  testimonies.  In  April, 
1642,"  one  "P.  B."  published  a  Discourse  favoring  the  Baptism  of  children. 
This  was  the  well-known  Praise-God  Barbon,^^  whom  both  Ivimey^'and  Brook  ^° 
represent  to  have  been  a  Baptist  and  the  pastor  of  a  Baptist  church,  and  who 
really  was  closely  connected  with  them  ;  but  whose  two  books  which  have  been 
preserved,  show  him,  while  on  friendly  terms  with  the  Baptists  —  "fome  of 
w'hich  are  my  loving  friends  and  acquaintance,  whom  I  would  not  difpleafe,  but 
rather  pleafe ;  whom  I  envy  not,  but  love ;  but  the  truth  is  to  be  loved  above 


'^  Richard  Baxter  [Religui<e  Baxter iatur,  etc.  41] 
says,  under  a  date  which  seems  to  be  cither  164 1  or 
1642,  that  at  Gloucester  he  met  with  the  first  Anabap- 
tists lie  had  ever  seen:  "about  a  dozen  young  Men,  or 
more,  of  confiderable  Parts,  had  received  the  Opinion 
againft  Infant  r.aptifm,  and  were  rcbaptized,  and  la- 
boured to  draw  others  after  them."  But  he  says 
nothing  about  their  insisting  on  any  particular  mode  of 
administration. 

3=  No.  5,  p.  8. 

""The  famous  "  Root  and  Br.mtli  "  ]iiiuiioii,  j)rayiiig 
that  the  government  of  Bishops  with  all  its  Dependen- 
cies, Roots  and  Branches,  be  abolished,  had  been  sent 
lo  Parliament  the  previous  December. 


"'•  "April,  1642,"  is  Thomason's  endorsement  across 
the  title-page. 

*''  Misled  by  the  endorsement,  in  what  seemed  to  be  a 
contemporary  hand-writing,  across  the  title-page  of  a 
copy  in  my  possession,  in  the  Bibliographical  Collec- 
tions in  the  Appendi.x  of  Congres^atiotialism  as  Seen, 
etc.,  I  wrongly  attributed  this  [No.  S83]  to  "P.  Bake- 
well."  But  Thomason's  endorsement  refers  it  to  Bar- 
bon,  while  Kilcop  [Short  Treatife,  etc.  No.  7,  p.  S] 
in  replying  to  the  bonk  says:  "thus  did  Praisgod  Bar- 
bon  of  late ;  "  citing  passages  showing  beyond  mistake 
his  reference  to  this  tract. 

s'-'ii.S?. 

*"iii:  399. 


[47] 


all,  being  moft  deare  and  precious""*'  —  to  have  radically  opposed  their  views 
on  the  subject  in  hand.     He  says  :  *^ 

The  way  of  /lew  Baptizing,  /aU/j'  began  to  be  pra(5lifc(l  by  fome  fiippofing  tlicmfclvcs,  and 
fo  others,  not  to  have  bin  Baptized  with  the  Baptifmc  of  Christ,  hath  no  ground,  etc.  .  .  . 

But  now  z-'cry  lately  fome  are  mightily  taken,  as  having  found  out  a  new  defeat  in  the  Bap- 
tifmc under  the  defection,  which  maiceth  fuch  a  nullitie  of  Baptifme,  in  their  conceit,  that  it  is 
none  at  all;  and  it  is  concerning  the  7/ianner  of  Baptizing,  whcxQm  they  have  efpycd  fuch 
default  as  it  maketh  an  abfolute  nullity  of  all  perfons  Baptifme  but  fuch  as  have  bin  fo  Bap- 
tized according  to  their  new  difcovery  ;  and  fo  j^artly  as  before  in  regard  of  the  fubject,  and 
partly  in  regard  of  fo  great  default  in  the  manner :  They  not  only  conclude,  as  is  before  fayd, 
a  nullity  of  their  prefent  Baptifme,  And  fo  but  addreffe  themfelves  to  be  Baptized  a  third  time 
after  the  true  way  and  manner  they  have  foimd  ont,  which  they  account  a  precious  truth.  The 
particular  of  their  opinion  and  frac^i/e  is  to  Dip,  and  that  perfons  are  to  be  Dipped,  all  and  ez'cry 
part  to  be  under  the  IVatcr  ;  for  if  all  the  whole  perfon  be  not  under  the  Water,  then  they  hold 
they  are  not  Baptized  with  the  Baptifme  of  Chrift.  As  for  Sprinkling,  or  pouring  Water  on 
the  Face,  it  is  nothing  at  all  as  they  account,  and  fo  meafuring  themfelves  by  thefe  new 
thoughts,  as  unbaptized,  they  addrclTe  themfelves  to  take  it  up  after  the  manner  of  Dipping. 
.  .  .  Baptifme  [they  reason]  is  a  Buriall,  as  it  is  written,  We  are  Buried  with  him  in  Baptifme, 
&c.,  and  we  are  raifed  up  alfo  to  newncffe  of  life.  This  Buriall  and  refurre6tion,  only  Dipping 
can  import  and  hold  forth.  Whcreunto  I  f;iy  it  is  very  true,  that  Baptifme  is  a  Buriall,  and 
holdeth  forth  our  Buriall  and  rifing  with  Chrift.  And  fo  it  is  [also]  in  regard  of  the  perfon  that 
is  Baptized  by  Sprinckling,  or  powring  Water  on  the  Face,  as  they  are  pleafed  to  fay,  they  are 
under  the  water,  and  Buried.  I  defire  they  would  fliew  how  elfe  they  were  Baptized  unto 
Mofes  in  the  Cloud  and  in  the  Sea,  when  not  fo  much  as  an  hair  of  their  heads  was  wet  .  .  . 

And  furthermore  to  refolve  and  determine  how  this  totall  dipping  can  (land  with  modefly 
and  f.iamfaftenefTe,  is  a  hard  matter  to  be  made  apparant.  If  out  of  modefly  perfons  fliall  ufe 
a  linnen  garment,  or  the  like,  it  will  be  very  confiderable  [z.^*.  it  will  require  to  be  carefully 
considered],  whether  this  is  not  to  be  modeft  above  what  is  written,  etc.  .  .  . 

I  hope  when  they  have  further  confidered  this  matter,  they  may  abate  of  the  fierccnes  of 
their  opinion  :  fo  as  to  thinke  that  Baptifme  under  or  in  the  defection  may  be  Gods  ordinance, 
fo  as  there  shall  be  no  need  of  this  new  dipping. 

But  inafmuch  as  this  is  a  very  new  way,  and  the  full  growth  of  it,  and  fettling  is  not  yet 
kuffiun,  if  it  be  to  themfelves,  yet  not  to  me  and  others :  I  will  forbeare  to  fay  further  to  it. 

Careful  reading  will  find  three  things  here  declared,  viz. :  (i)  that  certain 
Baptists  were  then  insisting  on  dipping  as  essential  to  true  Baptism  ;  (2)  that 
this  view  —  in  the  spring  of  1642  — had  been  very  recently  for  the  first  time 
advocated  and  acted  upon  ;  and  (3)  that  its  adoption  by  some  had  led  them  to 
submit  to  the  rite  for  the  third  time  "^  —  which  last  renders  necessarv  the  con- 


*'  Difcourfe,  etc.  [No.  6]  p.  iv. 

**I&id.  pp.  3,  12,  13,  15. 

*3  Barbon  refers  to  this  in  another  place  fp.  11]: 
"  here  is  no  ground  to  goe  upon,  but  ihat  wliich  leadeth 
into  an  endlelTe  Labyrinth:  and,  indeed,  this  fome  of 
them  have  come  to  fee  and  to  confelTe,  and  fo  have 


rejected  their  Tecond  Baptifme  alfo,  and  taken  up  a 
third,  which  in  time  no  doubt,  when  their  heate  is 
over  .  .  .  they  will  fee  it  to  be  as  faulty  as  their  first  or 
fecond,  etc."  N.  Homes  in  his  Vindicaiio7i,  etc. 
(1645)  [No.  77,  p.  v]  describes  an  actual  case,  as  fol- 
lows : 


[48] 

elusion  that  the  English  Baptists  who  had  felt  bound  in  conscience  to  be  rebap- 
tized  as  adults,  had  been  hitherto  sprinkled  or  affuscd  ;  obliging  them,  when 
they  afterwards  took  up  the  idea  of  dipping,  to  be  baptized  still  again.'" 

Four  treatises  on  the  other  side  followed  Mr.  Barbon's  volume  within  three 
months  ;  one  by  Thomas  Kilcop''^  in  May,  one  by  Edward  Barber  in  May,'*^  and 
one  in  June  by  "A.  R.,"^'  followed  by  a  Second  Fart, *^  in  July,  from  the  same 
author.  Kilcop  refers  to  Barbon's  book,  and  replies  to  one  of  his  arguments, 
Barbon  ^'  had  questioned  the  right  of  the  Baptists,  if  they  did  think  true  bap- 
tism to  have  been  lost  from  the  earth,  to  restore  the  same  without  special 
warrant  from  heaven.     Kilcop  answers  :  ^° 

Every  Scripture  that  gives  you  warrant,  or  any  of  your  judgement,  to  erefl  a  Church 
ftate,  gives  us  the  fame  warrant  to  ereft  baptifme,  fith  the  one  cannot  be  done  without  the 
other,  for  none  can  put  on  Chrill  (that  is  vifibly  by  outward  profeffion)  but  fuch  as  are 
baptifed  into  Chrirt,  etc. 

But  he  makes  no  allusion  whatever  to  Barbon's  charge  of  the  newness  of 
the  dipping  way. 

Barber's  treatise  bears  on  its  title-page  the  date  of  1641.  But  the  book 
contains  internal  evidence  carr}'ing  it  over  at  least  to  May,  1642,  as  its  earliest 
possible  date  of  issue.-'  He  replies  to  Barbon  in  the  same  manner  as  Kilcop 
had  done  j^^  but  makes  no  further  reference  to  the  charge  of  the  newness  of 
the  dipping  way,  than  is  involved  in  saying  in  his  preface : " 

Beloved  Reader,  it  may  feeme  llrange  that  in  thefe  times  when  fuch  abundance  of  Knowl- 
edge of  the  Gofpell  is  profefTed  in  the  World,  there  Ihould  notwithitanding  be  generally  fuch 
ignorance,  efpecially  in  and  amongft  thofe  that  profcffe  themfelves  Minifters  thereof,  of  that 
glorious  principle.  True  Baptifme  or  Dipping  .  .  .  and  that  the  Lord  fliould,  amongfl  fome 
others,  raife  up  niee,  a  poore  Trade/man,  to  devlge  [divulge]  this  glorious  Truth  .  .  .  The  Lords 
ufuall  dealing  it  being  to  bring  mighty  things  to  paffe  by  weake  meanes,  as  .  .  .  where  the 
walls  of  Jcrecho  fell  down  by  the  blails  of  Rams  homes,  etc. 


One  conpregation  at  firft  addinjc  to  their  Infant-Bap- 
lifme  the  adult  baptifme  of  fpniiklin^;:  then  not  reding 
therein,  endeauourinj;  toaddeto  that  a  dipping,  euen 
to  tlie  breakin;j;  to  peeces  of  their  congrcfcaiion.  Since 
that  the  Minifter  firll  dipped  himfelfe  No!  contented 
therewith,  was  after  baptized  by  one  that  had  onely  hia 
Infante  Uapiil'me. 

*^  I  beg  to  say  here,  once  for  all,  that  I  fully  appre- 
ciate the  objection  which  our  Baptist  brethren  logically 
make,  from  their  premises,  to  the  using  of  the  term 
"  baptized  again,"  when  one,  sprinkled  in  childhood, 
is  aflused  or  immersed  in  after  life.  I  use  the  term  not 
with  purpose  of  offense  to  them,  but  simply  as  true 
from  jny  standpoint,  and  the  most  convenient  way, 
without  lengthened  circumlocution,  of  stating  the  facts. 


«=  No.  7. 

<'■  No.  8. 

<■  No.  g.  * 

■"  No.  10. 

**  Difcourfe,  etc.  p.  6.  [referring  to  the  case  of  Nadab 
and  Abihu,  Lev.  x.] 

^  Short  Treati/e,  etc.  [No.  7]  p.  10. 

"'  R.g-  [p.  27.]  "  Since  part  of  this  Treatife  was  in 
PrefTe,  there  came  to  my  hand  a  Booke,  let  forth  by 
P.  B.  [No.  6,  published  Apr.  1642]  which  could  f  have 
gotten  fooncr,  I  fliould  have  answered  more  fully, 
etc.'' 

B!  Small  Treatife,  etc.  [No.  8]  p.  27. 

» Ibid.  p.  ii. 


[49] 


"A.  R."  has  in  his  Second  Part  the  following  plea  in  mitigation  of  this 
charge  of  newness,  etc. :  ^* 

If  any  fliall  thinke  it  (Irange  and  unlikely,  that  all  the  godliefl  Divines  and  bed  Churches 
Ihould  be  thus  deceiued  in  this  point  of  Baptifme  for  fo  many  yeares  together  [/.  e.  as  never 
before  to  know  that  true  baptism  is  dipping,  and  dipping  alone  true  baptism] :  let  them  con- 
fider  that  all  Chriftendome  (except  here  and  there  one,  or  fume  few,  or  no  confidcrable  number) 
was  fwallowed  up  in  groffe  Popery  for  many  hundred  yeares  before  Luthers  time,  which  was 
not  untill  about  lOO.  yeares  agone. 

We  may  note  here,  in  passing,  a  similar  plea  advanced  eleven  years  later 
by  W.  Kaye  in  his  Baptifme  without  Bafui,  etc.  (1653),  thus  : '' 

Q.  How  comes  it  then  to  pafs  that  this  Doctrine  of  Baptifme  [dipping]  hath  not  been  before 
revealed  ? 

A.  [in  part]  In  difcovery  whereof,  the  Church  begitts  to  be  reftored  to  the  purity  of  tlie 
primitive  time  of  Chrift  and  his  Apollles. 

At  some  iime  during  1642  one  "  R.  B."  also  replied  to  Mr.  Barbon  in  a 
book^*  which  has  thus  far  eluded  my  search,  but  which  led  Barbon  to  write  a 
reply,  which  came  out  14  April,  1643.  ^^  ^^^^  course  thereof  he  utters  himself 
as  follows,  viz. : " 

New  things  are  very  pleafant,  and  many  are  much  taken  with  them,  as  is  R.  B.  with  dip 
ping;  about  which  he  taketh  great  paines,  produceth  many  fcripturcs,  etc.  .  .  .  What  fliould 
be  the  cause  R.  B.  hath  laboured  fo  much  in  this  matter  of  dipping,  and  taken  notice  of  every 
particular,  I  leave  every  man  free  to  judge :  for  my  part  I  take  it  to  be,  as  I  faid  before  :  //  is 
neiu,  and  the  man  is  mightily  taken  with  it.  [He  goes  on  to  charge  R.  B.  wiih]  denying  the 
Baptifme  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches  &  separed  [separated]  Churches,  &  alfo  of  all  other 
Chrirtians,  either  Reformed,  or  yet  in  defeflion,  only  thole  two  or  three  [Churches]  excepted 
that  have  within  thefe  two  or  tliree yeeres,  or  fome  fuch  JJiort  time,  bin  totally  dipped  {qx  Baptifme 
by  perfons  at  the  beginning  unbaptized  themfelves.  [Further  in  referring  to  Barber's  book,  he 
cites  his  taunt :  "  the  Church  P.  B.  is  a  member  of  was  unheard  of  till  within  these  200. 
yeeres,"  and  replies]  Well ;  two  hundred  yeeres  is  fome  antiquitie,  more  then  two  or  three 
yeeres,  fuch  as  is  the  defcent  of  the  totall  dippers  in  this  kingdojnc. 

Here  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  "very  lately"  of  his  book  of  April,  1642, 
becomes  the  more  definite  "two  or  three  yeeres;"  which,  deducted  from  .'Xpril, 
1643,  would  fi.\  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  practice  of  dipping,  so  far  as  his 
authority  goes,  as  having  been  in  1640  or  1641.  Another  writer,  J.  Watts 
(1657),  fourteen  years  later  makes  a  statement  which  reaches  nearly  the  same 
result:  giving  the  origin  of  dipping  in  England  —  he  probably  wrote  in  1656  — 
as  "about  13.  or  14.  yeare  agoe."  ^^ 


"  Tlie  Second  Part  o/  the  Vanity,   etc.    [No.    lo] 
p.  29. 
'■-'■■No.  168,  p.  li. 

4 


WNo.  13. 

'■'  A  Reply,  etc.  |No.  i8]  pp.  lo,  30,  31,  61. 

'^  J.  Walls,  A  Scribe,  etc.  [No.  2igJ  p.  64. 


[50] 


To  save  space  I  shall  now  classify  a  number  of  corroborative  testimonies, 
arranged  in  the  order  of  their  years  of  publication,  viz. : 

1644.  D.  Featley.  59— "this  Article  [the  XLth  of  the  Anabaptijl  Confeffion  requiring  dip- 
ping] is  wholly  fowred  with  the  new  /eave?t  of  Anabaptifme.  I  fay  the  7icw  leaven ;  for 
it  cannot  be  proved  that  any  of  the  ancient  Anabaptijls  maintained  any  fuch  fofitioti.  .  .  . 
It  is  true,  John  baptized  Chrift  in  Jordan,  ard  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  in  the  river: 
but  the  text  faith  not,  that  either  the  Eunuch,  or  Chrifl:  himfeif,  or  any  baptized  by  John, 
or  his  Difciples,  or  any  of  Chrifts  Difciples,  were  dipped,  plunged,  or  dow/ed  over  head 
and  ears,  as  this  Article  implyeth,  and  our  Anabaptifts  now  practife." 

1644.  W.  Cooke  :  60  «<  I  would  know  with  thefe  ne7u  Dippers,  whether  the  parties  to  be 
dowfed  and  dipped,  may  be  baptized  in  a  garment,  or  no?  If  they  may,  then  happily 
[haply]  the  garment  may  keep  the  water  from  fome  part  of  the  body,  and  then  they  are 
not  rightly  baptized ;  for  the  whole  man,  fay  they,  mufl  be  dipped." 

1644.  The  author  of  the  Lovall  Convert,  etc. 61  styles  this  baptism  by  dipping:  "The  New 
Distemper." 

1644.  I.  Knutton:62  "this  opinion  [of  rcbaptizing  by  dipping]  being  but  new  a?td upjlart, 
there  is  good  reason  they  should  difclaime  it,  and  be  humbled  for  it." 

1645.  J'  MABBATT63  replies  to  Knutton's  taunt  not  by  denying,  but  by  justifying,  the  new- 
ness, in  saying:  "the  Apoftles  were  in  their  time  charged  for  'new  and  upftart'  Doc- 
trine by  fome ;  (hould  they  by  good  reafon  therefore  difclayme  it,  and  be  humbled  for  it, 
and  fo  have  denyed  Christs  doctrine  and  Truth,"  etc. 

1645.  E.  Pagitt. 64 —  "yea,  at  this  day  they  [the  Anabaptists]  have  a  new  crotchet  come  into 
their  heads,  that  all  that  have  not  been  plunged  nor  dipt  under  water,  are  not  trucly  bap- 
tized, and  thefe  alfo  they  re-baptize  ...  In  the  Thames  and  Rivers,  the  Baptizer,  and 
the  party  baptized  goe  both  into  the  Rivers,  and  the  parties  to  be  baptized  are  dipped  or 
plunged  under  water." 

1645.     Nineteen  Arguments,  etc.  :6s  "The  nezu  Ordinance  of  Dipping,"  etc. 
1645.     J-  Salt.marsh66  calls  "the  dippiirg them  in  the  water  .  .  .  the  nrw  Baptifm." 
1645.     Hanserd  Knollys,67  in  answering  Saltmarsh,   retorts   that   "Paul's   Doflrine   was 
called  '  new,'  although  he  preached  Jefus  and  the  Rcfurrecf ion,"  etc. 

1645.  J-  Eachard^S  says:  "the  Anabaptiftes  by  a  7te:u  baptifme  .  .  .  will  not  communicate 
with  others,  for  they  think  they  are  more  holy  then  others,  by  ftrictneffe  of  their  order, 
etc." 

1646.  R.  BAILLIE69  declares:  "Among  the  new  invcniions  of  the  late  Anabaptifts,  there  is 
none  which  with  greater  animofity  they  fet  on  foot,  then  [than]  the  neceffity  of  dipping 
over  head  and  ears ;  then  [than]  the  nullity  of  affufion  and  fprinkiing  in  the  adminiflra- 


f'O  Tttc  Dipf>ers  Dipt,  etc.  [No.  46]  p.  187. 

^  A  Learned  and  Full  Answer,  cXc.  [No.  30]  p.  21. 

«'  The  New  Dijietnper,  'writien  by  the  Author  of 
the  Loyall  Convert,  etc.  Oxford,  4°.  pp.  ii,  26.  The 
v/hole  book  t.ikes  its  name  as  an  attack  upon  the 
"prophanations"'  of  these  dippers. 

''-  Seven  Questions,  etc.  [No.  45]  p.  23. 

'^A  Bricfe  or  Generall,  etc.  [No.  64]  p.  32. 


''*  Herrjio^^raphy,  etc.  [No.  54]  pp.  30,  31. 

'■'•'■  No.  68,  p.  4. 

•'''  The  Smoke  in  tite  Temple,  etc.  [No.  6g]  p]). 
15,  16. 

^''  Tlu  Shining  of  a  Flaming  Fire,  etc.  [No.  74] 
p.  I. 

f''  Tlie  Axe  AgaivJ},  etc.  [No.  75]  p.  8. 

^^*  AnabapH/m,  etc.  [No.  102]  p.  163. 


[5'1 


tion  of  baptisme  .  .  .  The  quejlion  aboiU  the  necejfcty  of  dipping  feems  to  he  taken  up  oncly 
the  other  year  by  the  Anabaptijls  in  England  .  .  .  The  prcfiing  of  dipping,  and  exploding 
of  I'prinkWng,  is  hut  an ye/terday  eoneeit  oi  the  Englilli  Anabaptifts  .  .  .  Let  us  therefore 
confider  if  this  fparkle  of  ne-M  light  have  any  derivation  from  the  lamp  of  the  Sanfluary, 
etc." 

1650.  N.  Stephens  70  argues  :  "If  they  [Anabaptists]  fay  that  the  CommifTion  Matt,  xxviii : 
19  was  their  firll  Adminiftrators  rule,  then  he  muft  be  a  Difciple  made  by  ordinary 
preaching  and  teaching,  before  he  had  authority  to  minifter  their  7icio  Baptifme." 

1653.  John  Goodwin  —  the  famous  pastor  of  St.  Stephens,  Coleman  St.  —  is  a  voluminous 
witness.  He  wrote  three  books  within  two  years  bearing  upon  the  subject,  and  it  would 
be  wearisome  to  exhaust  here  the  apt  citations  from  these  volumes.  I  extract  a  few  as  a 
sample. 

From  Philadelphia,  etc.  {1653):  71  "the  brethren  of  new  Baptifme;"  "the  way  of 
new  Baptifme;"  "furprifed  with  a  religious  conceit  of  a  neceffity  of  new  Baptifme;" 
"the  children  of  7iexu  Baptifme,"  etc. 

From  Water-Dipping,  etc.  {1653) :  72  "  not  fimply  lawful,  but  neceffary  alfo  (in  point  of 
duty)  for  perfons  baptized  after  the  new  mode  of  Dipping,  to  continue  communion  with 
thofe  churches  ...  of  which  they  were  members  before  the  faid  Dipping ; "  "  the  7iew 
mode  of  Dipping;  "  "  being  a6tually  baptized  after  the  manner  of  the  brethren  of  new 
Baptifme;"  "the  main  Pillar  upon  which  the  houfe  of  our  new  Dippers  of  men,  and 
dividers  of  Churches,  is  built;"  "I  heartily  wifh  for  the  fake  of  fome  of  them,  whom  I 
know,  that  their  nezu  Baptifm  doth  not  help  to  diminifli  their  old  grace;"  "and  for  the 
Mode  of  the  latefl  and  newefl  Invention  ...  it  is,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  conceive  by 
the  reprefentation  of  it  made  unto  fome  of  us,  fo  contrived,  and  fo  to  be  managed,  that 
the  Baptifl  who  dippeth  according  to  it  had  need  to  be  a  man  of  f^out  limbs,  and  of  a 
very  able  and  acftive  body :  otherwife  the  perfon  to  be  baptized,  efpecially  if  in  any 
degree  corpulent,  or  unwieldy,  runs  a  great  hazard  of  meeting  with  Chrifts  latter  Bap- 
tifm, inftead  of  his  former;  "  "perfons  baptized  after  the  nezo  mode  of  dipping." 

From  Catabaptism,  etc. 73  (1655):  "your  new  baptifme;"  "after  the  new  mode  of 
dipping ;"  "Mr.  W.  A.  himfelf  in  his  'Anfvver,'  [App.  No.  167]  etc.  maketh  it  matter  of 
exception  and  complaint,  that  I  fometimes  flile  his  way  of  Rcbaptizing  New  Baptifm. 
And  yet  heretofore  in  difcuffing  with  a  grave  Minifter  of  Mr.  A's.  judgement  in  the  point 
of  Rcbaptizing,  and  the  moft  ancient  that  I  know  w-alking  in  that  way,  finding  him  not  fo 
we'll  fatiffied  that  his  way  fliould  be  (liled  Ana-baptifm,  I  defired  to  know  of  him  what 
other  term  would  pleafe  him?  His  2i\\i\\QX  wns  A^ew  Baptifn;"  "and  however  Baptills 
of  the  7iew  order  abhominate  the  faying  .  .  .  yet  it  may  truly,  at  leaft  beyond  all  reafon- 
able  contradiction  be  faid  that  unto  many,  their  buryi/ig  U7ider  water  hath  haftened  their 
burial  alfo  under  earth." 

1655.  J.  Parnell74  testifies:  "now  withi7i  thefe  late  yeares  .  .  .  they  [the  Anabaptifls]  fay 
.  .  .  they  muft  be  dipped  in  the  water,  and  that  they  call  baptifing." 

1657.  J.  Watts 75  declares:  "Dipping  was,  and  is,  as  I  have  faid,  a  Alif  buf/iefs,  and  a  very 
Ncr^eltyr 


'">j4  Preceftt,  etc.  [No.  137]  p.  65. 
"  No   166,  pp.  13,  24,  25,  2S. 
"No.  169,  pp.  i,  5,  11,  26,  39,  89. 


"  No.  196,  pp.  vi,  x.\x,  xxxii,  56. 

'<  TIu  Watcher, e\c.  [No.  202]  p    16. 

'••A  Scribe,  etc.  [No.  219J  p.  iii. 


[52] 


1669.  R.  Baxter:  76  ''they  [Anabaptists]  do  introduce  a  new  fort  of  Chriflianity  .  .  .  and  a 
new  fort  of  Baptifm,  whicli  the  church  of  Chrifl  never  knew  to  this  day  ...  As  if  they 
were  raifed  in  the  end  of  the  world  to  reform  the  Baptifm  and  Chriftianity  of  all  ages,  and 
were  not  only  wifer  than  the  univerfal  church  from  Chrifl  till  now,  but  alfo  at  laft  mufl 
make  the  Church  another  thing." 

If  these  multiplied  witnesses  tell  the  truth,  and  the  English  Baptists,  in  or 
about  1641,  did  largely  take  up  immersion  as  their  form  of  administering  bap- 
tism, in  all  human  probability  —  since  it  would  be  too  much  to  anticipate  that 
the  movement  could  instantly  carry  the  convictions  of  the  entire  body  —  it 
must  have  resulted,  that,  for  a  time  there  were,  side  by  side  in  that  country, 
two  sorts  of  Baptists ;  the  one  rejecting  infant  baptism,  but  using  aspersion 
still,  the  other  adding  to  their  original  tenet  the  fervent  holding  of  the  XLth 
Article  of  their  creed  of  1644.  We  are  not  without  evidence  that  such  was 
the  fact.  As  late  as  1660  we  find  A  Breife  Defcription,  or  Character,  of  the 
Religion  and  Mafifiers  0/ the  Phanatiques  ifi  GcJierall,  etc."'  carefully  distinguish- 
ing between  simple  Anabaptists,  and  Dippers.  In  1656  the  author  of  Eiren- 
ikon  "^  in  undertaking  to  compose  the  existing  theological  differences  of  the 
time,  thus  speaks : 

But  there  are  Anabaptifls  —  fo  fome  call  them, 
Wee'l  not  Difpute  the  name  :  all  good  befall  them. 
Good  Brother,  let  thy  Charity  advance 
To  give  them  timchtg  [the  timing]  of  an  Ordinance. 
And  for  what  elfe  moft  hold,  you  need  not  fear  them; 
However,  'tis  not  Chriftianlike  to  jeer  them. 
What  though  fome  weak  ones  hi  the  water  fall  ? 
Be  modeft.  Brother,  do  not  cenfure  all ; 
Look  but  amongrt;  them  with  impartial  eyes 
You'll  find  ther's  many  godly,  fober,  wife. 

I  maybe  wrong,  but  I  interpret  the  italicized  line  as  referring  to  immersion- 
ists,  as  distinguished  from  their  affusionist  brethren.  However  this  may  be,  we 
have  a  most  square  and  definite  testimony,  in  1646,''  to  this  effect,  as  to  the 
town  of  Chelmsford,  in  Essex : 

It  is  fo  filled  with  Sedtaries,  efpecially  Brownifis  and  A)iabaptifls,  that  a  third  part  of  the 
people  refufe  to  communicate  in  the  Church-Lyturgie,  and  halfe  refufe  to  receive  the  blcfled 
Sacrament,  unleffe  they  may  receive  it  in  what  poflure  they  pleafe  to  take  it.  They  have 
amongft  them  two  forts  of  Anabaptijls;  the  one  they  call  the  Old  Men,  or  Aspersi,  becaufe  they 


^"  Tlu  Cure  of  Church-divifioiis  ;  or  Diredions  for 
weak  Chrijlians,  to  keep  them  front  being  Dividers  or 
Troublers  of  t}ie  Church,  etc.  1669.  S°.  pp.  xlviii,  430, 
iv.  \y<.  M.  (S73.  i.  22. )1  PP-  -l?.  4S. 

"No  249,  j;.  i. 


"  No.  214,  p.  20. 

"  B.  Ryves,  Mercurius  Rufiicus ;  or  the  Countries 
Cotnplaint  of  the  barbarous  Out-rages  comutitted  by 
the  Sectaries.  Oxford,  1646,  sm.  S'-'.  pp.  xvi,  224. 
[B.  M.  [E.  1099.  (i.)]  p.  22. 


[53] 


"U'ere  but  fprinkled :  the  other  they  call  the  A'^eio  Men,  or  the  Tmmf.RSI,  hecaufe  they  ruere  az'er- 
lohelmed  in  their  Kehaptization, 

One  of  my  Baptist  critics,  after  asking,  in  a  mixture  of  indignation  and 
triumph  :^  "When  did  English  Baptist  Churches  cease  to  pour  in  baptism,  and 
begin  to  immerse  ? "  went  on  to  say  in  censure  of  my  intimation  that  such  had 
been  the  case :  "  In  this,  as  in  other  things,  Dr.  Dexter  has  allowed  his  eager- 
ness in  making  out  a  case  to  overbear  his  fidelity  as  a  historian."  I  now  make 
respectful  answer  that  —  in  my  judgment  —  in  view  of  the  evidence  I  have  herein 
presented,  nothing  but  the  obstinate  and  discreditable  refusal  to  apply  to 
matters  touching  his  own  denomination  those  principles  and  processes  of  rea- 
soning which,  with  other  men,  he  is  accustomed  to  apply  to  all  other  things, 
can  prevent  a  Baptist  from  conceding  that  the  churches  of  his  order  in  the 
mother  country  did  introduce  dipping,  as  a  method  of  baptism  at  that  time 
new,  in  or  about  the  year  1641. 


Before  passing  from  the  subject  I  desire  to  add  a  few  words  upon  two 
related  questions :  Was  there  any  truth  in  the  ancient  statements  that  the  early 
English  Baptists  sent  over  to  Holland  in  order  to  obtain  genuine  immersion 
thence  ?  and  that  the  ordinance  was  at  first  received  by  their  candidates 
naked  ? 

Crosby's  view  of  the  first  matter  seems  to  be  that  there  were  three  ways 
possible  for  the  recovery  of  the  lost  rite  of  immersion  in  England  ;  viz. : 
(i)  "that  the  firfl  adminifiirator  fliould  baptize  himfelf,  and  then  proceed  to  the 
baptizing  of  others  ; "  "  (2)  "  that  firfl  they  formed  a  church  of  their  opinion  in 
the  point  of  baptifm  ;  then  the  church  appoints  two  of  these  miniflers  to  begin 
the  adminiftration  of  it,  by  baptizing  each  other ;  after  this  one,  or  both  thefe, 
baptize  the  reft  of  the  congregation  ; "  ^"  (3)  "  to  fend  over  to  the  foreign  Ana- 
baptifts,  who  defcended  from  the  antient  Waldenfes  in  France  or  Germany,  that 
fo  one  or  more  receiving  baptifm  from  them,  might  become  proper  admin- 
iurators  of  it  to  others."  "  He  says  :  "fome  thought  this  [latter]  the  beft  way, 
and  afted  accordingly ; "  but  "  the  greateft  number  of  the  Englifh  Baptifls,  and 


>»The  Chicago  Standard,  i  July,  iS8o. 

"  Hist  Eng.  Bap.  etc.  i :  97. 

^  Ibid,  i:  99.  It  is  one  of  the  curiosities  of  mental 
vagaries  on  such  subjects,  that  it  should  never  have 
occurred  to  the  good  people  advocating  this  view,  how 
Illogical,  upon  their  own  principles,  it  was.  They  held 
that  a  true  church  which  had  not  been  entered  by  im- 
mersion was  impossible ;  yet  they  proposed  to  form  a 
cliurch  of  unbapli^ed  people,  and  tu  have  that  unbap- 


tized  church  —  which,  being  such,  was  no  church,  and 
had  no  church-power  —  exercise  church-power  enough 
to  make  ministers,  and  to  authorize  tliose  ministers  to 
immerse  each  other,  and  then  to  turn  around  and  im- 
merse the  rest !  With  what  consistency  could  such  peo- 
ple in  their  next  breath  denounce  p.xdobaptist  cliurches 
as:  "falfe  churches,  fall'ely  conllimted  in  the  baptifm 
of  infants,  and  their  own  unbaplized  eftate?" 
^  Ibid,  i:  100. 


[54] 


the  more  judicious,  looked  upon  all  this  as  needlefs  trouble,  etc."  ^  He  himself 
was  of  opinion  (i)  that  John  Smyth  had  not  baptized  himself;  and  (2)  that  the 
English  Baptists  had  not  "  derived  their  baptifm  from  the  aforef^iid  Mr. 
Smith."  °^  He  therefore  judged  that  most  of  the  English  Baptists  received 
their  immersion  in  the  second  way  named.  As  we  have  seen,^  he  was  further 
clear  that  Mr.  Spilsbury  had  not  sought  foreign  baptism.  But  he  cites  the 
Kiffin  manuscript  in  proof  that  another  Englishman  did  go  abroad  for  that 
purpose. 

The  statement  of  the  Kiffin  paper  is  this :  " 

Several  fobcr  and  pious  perfons  belonging  to  the  congregations  of  the  diffenters  about 
London,  were  convinced  that  believers  were  the  only  proper  fubjecfts  of  baptifm,  and  that  it 
ought  to  be  adminiftcrcd  by  immerfion,  etc.  .  .  .  They  could  not  be  fatiffyed  about  any  admin- 
iflrator  in  England  to  begin  this  practice;  bccaufe  tho^  fame  in  this  nation  rgetfied  the  baptifm  of 
in/ants,  yet  they  had  not,  as  they  knew  of,  revived  the  anticnt  cufloin  of  immerfioii :  §3  But  hearing 
that  fome  in  the  Netherlands  pra(5tif'd  it,  they  agreed  to  fend  over  one  Mr.  Richard  Blount, 
who  underftood  the  Dutch  Language  :  That  he  went  accordingly,  carrying  letters  of  recom- 
mendation with  him,  and  was  kindly  received  both  by  the  church  there,  and  Mr.  yohn  Batte 
their  teacher:  That  upon  his  return,  he  baptized  Mr.  Samuel  Blacklock,  a  minifter,  and  thefe 
two  baptized  the  reft  of  their  company,  whofe  names  are  in  the  manufcript,  to  the  number  of 
fifty-three. 

Ivimey  and  Evans  ^'  appear  to  agree  with  Crosby  in  endorsing  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  account  here  given.  On  the  other  hand,  had  not  Kiffin  — 
as  it  is  supposed  —  made  the  statement,  it  would  be  suspicious  for  its  vagueness, 
and  for  the  fact  that  none  of  the  historians,  not  even  Wilson,  Calamy,  Brook 
or  Neal,  know  anything  about  either  Blount  or  Blacklock,  beyond  what  is  here 
stated.  It  is  true,  however,  that  Edwards,^  in  1646,  speaks  of  "one  Blunt, 
Emmes,  and  Wrighters  Church  "  as  "  one  of  the  firft  and  prime  Churches  of 
Anabaptifts  now  in  thefe  latter  times  ; "  and  Barclay''  seems  to  have  discov- 
ered that  there  was  a  jfohn  Batten,  who  was  "  a  well-known  Collegiant,  the 
teacher  of  a  congregation  of  Collegiants  at  Leyden,"  whom  he  supposes  to  be 
the  man  who  administered  the  immersion.  Moreover,  in  1676,  E.  Hutchinson, 
in  speaking  of  the  origin  of  the  Baptists  in  England,  says : '" 

The  great  objeflion  was  the  want  of  an  Adminiftrator,  which  (as  I  have  heard)  w^as 
removed  by  fending  certain  meffcngers  to  Holland,  whence  they  were  fupplied. 


'*  Ibid,  i:  loi. 

""  He  was  certainly  in  error  as  to  Helwys  and  Mur- 
ton,  and  the  churches  which  they  founded,  and  all  who 
stood  in  succession  from  them. 

*"  See  p.  44,  a>ite. 

8'  nut.  En^.  Bmp.  i:  102. 

*'  The  reader  will  not  fail  to  note  the  —  incidental, 
and  therefore    influential  —  corroboration   which    this 


sentence  affords  to  the  demonstration  already  given 
that  immersion  was  unknown  to  the  Baptists  in  Eng- 
land between  1600  and  1641. 

^  Hist.  Eng.  Bap.  etc.  i:  145:  Early  Eng.  Bap. 
etc.  ii :  78. 

"0  Gangmna,  etc.  3d  Pt.  p.  112. 

^^  Inner  Life,  etc.  75. 

^^  A  Treatiie,  etc.  LNo.  307]  p.  vi. 


[55] 

A  broadside,  which  has  been  preserved  in  the  library  of  the  British  Museum 
—  bearing  date  5  Jan.  1659  —  may  perhaps  be  fairly  taken  in  general  corrob- 
oration of  the  Kiffin  statement,  although  it  refers  to  a  previous  attempt  which 
was  a  failure  in  a  more  distant  field.  It  purports  to  have  been  "  written  by 
a  pious  Gentleman  that  hath  been  thirteen  yeares  amongft  the  Separatifts."'^ 
He  is  describing  Puritans  who  had  become  Anabaptists,  and  he  says : 

V.  II.     Then  you  together  took  in  liand 

To  build  Chrifl;  houfe  upon  the  fand, 
And  flill  30U  want  the  Corners-done  — 
I  mean  Jclus  that  is  Chrift  alone. 

V.  12.     His  word  you  know  you  did  promife  [peruse  ?] 
And  there  you  found  the  word  baptize, 
You  faid  the  meaning  oft  mull  be 
Needs  meant  of  water-Baptifnie. 

V.  13.     Then  did  you  mufe  and  cafl  your  care 
All  for  an  Adminidrator; 
But  here  in  England  none  was  feen 
That  ufed  aught  but/prinMing.'H 

V.  14.    At  length  you  heard  men  fay, 

That  there  was  Saints  in  Silefia, 
Who  ever  fmce  the  Apollles  time 
I-Iad  kept  this  Ordinance  pure,  divine. 

V.  15.     Thither  alafs  you  fent  in  hade 

And  thus  you  did  fome  treafure  wade. 
But  when  your  meffengers  came  there 
They  were  deceiv'd  as  we  are  here. 

V.  16.     But  this  they  told  you  in  good  deed. 
That  they  of  baptifm  stood  in  need ; 
And  for  a  prefent  remedy. 
With  prayers  they  to  Heaven  did  cry. 

V.  17.     Then  did  they  with  a  joynt  confent 
Do  that  of  which  you  now  repent. 
Authorize  one  them  to  baptize 
Thus  this  fine  cheat  they  did  dcuife. 


19.     And  thus,  at  length,  you  yourfclvcs  baptized, 
Till  you  another  feet  deuifed; 
etc.        etc.        etc.        etc. 


™  A  ntiquakeri/nt,  or  a  CharaSler  of  the  Quakers 
Spirit  from  its  Original,  etc.  [No.  238.] 


**  Another  incidental  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  main 

argument  of  this  chapter. 


[56] 


The  same  sheet  contains  a  marginal /wi"^  note,  thus : 

They  fent  up  and  down  the  world  for  a  man  to  baptize  them,  but  they  found  none,  but  fuch 
as  had  baptized  themfelves.  In  En^/and  there  was  fome  [kindred  spirits,  i.e.  Baptists]  in  the 
practice  of  fprinckling,  94  but  thefe  the  Dippers,  to  my  knowledge,  did  reject  from  communion 
with  them  on  this  very  ground. 

From  all  which  it  seems  safe  to  conclude  that  while  Mr.  Blount  probably 
did  go  to  Holland  and  obtain  immersion  from  the  Collegiantcn,  this  was  the 
only  case  of  the  sort,  and  did  not  alter  the  fact  that  the  majority  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  Baptists  of  England  originated  immersion  among  themselves,  after  the 
second  manner  which  Crosby  suggests. 

The  testimony  as  to  the  remaining  question  is  conflicting.  We  may  most 
intelligently  glance  at  this  also  in  chronological  order  ;  and  I  shall  assume  that 
the  truth  of  the  old  maxim y^^  ejl  ab  hojle  doceri,  will  sufficiently  cover  the  point 
of  some  value  in  the  evidence  of  those  who  did  not  agree  with,  and  even 
maligned  these  men,  to  make  it  worth  our  while  to  include  in  aid  of  our  judg- 
ment two  or  three  specimens  of  what  they  said. 

1643.  An  Anabaptists  Sermon,  etc.9S  This  word  wafh  ...  is  not  to  fprinkle  them  with  a 
little  idolatrous  water  out  of  a  Font  or  Bafon ;  but  to  powre  water  on  their  heads ;  nay  to 
dip  them  in  water  over  head  and  eares ;  for  fuch  dipping  will  fetch  the  faltneflc  of  finnc  out 
of  their  natures  .  .  .  Unleffe  all  be  thus  rebaptized  Jlark  naked,  &  diped  as  well  head 
as  tayle,  as  you  are,  none  can  be  faved. 

1644.  The  Anabaptists  Ground-work,  etc.  96  I  afk  T.[homas]  L.[amb]  and  the  reft  of 
thofe  Baptifls,  or  Dippers,  that  will  not  be  called  Anabaptifts  (though  they  baptize  fome 
that  have  been  twice  baptized  before  97)  what  rule  they  have  by  word  or  example  in 
Scripture, y<7r  their  going  men  and  luomen  together  into  the  "water,  and  for  their  manner  of 
dipping,  and  every  circumftance  and  aflion  they  perform  concerning  the  fame. 

1644.  D.  Featley.  98  The  refort  of  great  multitudes  of  men  and  women  together  in  the 
evening,  And  going  naked  into  rivers,  there  to  be  plunged  and  Dipt,  cannot  be  done  with- 
out Icandall  .  .  .  They  llrip  themfelves  Jlark  naked,  .  .  .  when  they  flock  in  great  multi- 
tudes, men  and  women  together,  to  their  Jordaus  to  be  dipt,  etc. 

1644.  S.  Richardson 99  answering  Featley,  says:  Wee  anfwcr,  wee  abhor  it  [ba]itism 
naked]  and  deny  that  any  of  us  ever  did  fo,  and  challenge  him  to  prove  it  againft  us,  if 
he  can. 

1645.  The  Anabaptists  Catechisme,  etc. :  >«> 
Q.   Why  are  you  called  Anabaptijls  ? 


""^  No.  xg,  pp.  s,  8. 

'>"  No.  24,  p.  23. 

'"  Notice  the  confirmation  here  further  giveti  of  the 
fact  that  the  Baptists  before  1641,  or  thereabouts,  had 
been  affused  as  adults.     Only  so  could  their  ultimate 


immersion  become  the  third  aJniiiiistration  of  the  rite 
to  them. 

»8  Tlu  Dipfiers  Drfii,  etc.  [No  46]  pp.  36,  167. 

^  Some  Brief  Considerations,  etc.  [No.  48]  p.  5. 

100  No.  59,  p.  I. 


[57] 


A.  Becaufe  we  went  naked  into  the  pure  water,  and  were  dipped  in  the  holy  (Ireames, 
where  we  clenfed  our  bodies  (from  the  corruption  that  was  before  upon  us)  in  the 
prefence  of  the  Brethren,  and  the  Sifters  of  the  Congregation. 

1645.  T-  Edwards  collected  several  testimonies  in  the  drag-net  of  his  Gangrcena :  'O'  They 
[the  Anabaptists]  have  baptized  many  weakly  antient  women  naked  in  rivers  in  winter, 
whereupon  fome  have  fickened  and  died  ...  In  baptizing  women  naked  in  the  prefence 
and  fight  of  men  .  .  .  No  wonder  he  [a  man  of  doubtful  reputation  become  Anabaptil^ 
preacher]  and  many  fuch,  turned  Dippers  to  dip  young  maids  and  young  luomcn  naked,  for 
it  was  the  fitteft  trade  to  fcrve  their  turns  that  could  be  ...  A  company  of  uncleane 
men  under  the  pretence  of  Religion,  might  have  thereby  faire  opportunities  to  feed  their 
eyes  full  of  adultery  in  beholding  young  women  tiaked,  and  in  handling  young  women 
naked,  being  about  them  in  dreffing  and  undrelTmg  them,  etc.  .  .  .  Many  in  our  times  who 
profeffed  Religion  were  luftfull  filthy  perfons,  though  this  was  covered  under  a  profeflion 
of  Religion,  and  therefore  fo  loon  as  they  heard  of  an  opinion  of  baptizing  grown  per- 
fons, and  that  by  dipping  of  naked  women,  they  prefently  fell  to  it,  as  the  beft  way  to  enjoy 
their  lufts  by,  etc.'°2 

1646.  The  Times  Displayed  >o3  [represents  the  Anabaptist  as  saying] : 

After  fo  long  a  night  of  woe  and  forrow 

Behold  a  fair,  and  a  delicious  morrow ; 

After  fo  many  years,  when  we  oppreft 

Were  fined,  imprifoned,  and  could  never  reft. 

For  the  Beafts  Image,  the  hated  Bifliops,  now 

We  openly  and  without  dread  avow 

Our  tenets,  dipping  maids  and  wives  each  day 

Their  natural  concupicence  to  allay ; 

And  although  some  we  drown,  thofe  drowned  fo 

Doe  but  by  water  unto  heaven  goe. 

1648.  R.  Allen  »°4  argues:  If  it  be  fufificient  reafon  againft  Infant  Baptifm  that  there  is  no 
exprefs  precept  or  example  for  it,  then  let  the  Anabaptiils  themfelves  for  lliame  leave  off 
i\\2ii  yjtameful  Jlripping  and  dipping  thtir  profelytes,  or  elfe  ihew  me  where  they  have  any 
exprefs  command  or  example  for  it  .  .  .  As  for  \.\\q.\x Jlripping,  it  is  againft  common  hon- 
efty  and  modefty,  and  that  dipping  is  not  neceffary  to  be  ufed,  is  clear  from  their  own 
argument,  becaufe  they  have  no  where  one  exprefs  word  of  command  or  warrant  for  it. 

1650.  T.  Bakewell  : '05  Neither  may  they  have  garments  for  that  use  [of  dipping]  confe- 
crated  as  Aarons  breeches,  Exod.  28 :  42,  43.  This  would  be  as  bad  as  the  Prelates  Sur- 
plefs;  and  for  women  to  wear  them,  being  mans  apparel,  it  were  an  abomination  to  the 
Lord,  Deut.  22  :  5. 


""  No.  76,  pp.  67,  143;  No.  gg,  pp.  189,  261. 

102  Edwards  elsewhere  [p.  55]  adds  a  confirmatory 
incident : 

Another  woman  having  a  defire  to  be  Re-baptJzed, 
and  havin;j  uulled  off  all  her  cloaths  to  the  naked  Ikin, 
ready  to  j;"  into  the  Water,  but  forbearing  during  the 
time  the  Dipper  prayed,  the  covered  her  lecret  parts 
with  both  her  hands;  the  which  tlie  Dipper  efjjying, 
loid  tlie  woman  that  it  was  an  unfeemly  fi.cht  to  fte  her 
hold  her  hands  downward,  it  being  an  Ordinance  of 
lesus  Chrirt,  her  hands,  with  her  heart,  fhould  be  lifted 


upwards  toward  heaven  (as  he  fhow'd  her  liow  he  did), 
but  rtie,  refuting  for  modesties  lake,  could  not  be  Ke- 
baptized. 

103  T)u  Times  Di/played,  in  Six  Seflyads  :  the  firjl 
a  Prc/bytcr  and  an  Independent ;  tlufecond  att  A  na- 
baptijl  and  a  Brownijl,  etc  4°.  pp.  24.  [D.  M.  (E. 
365.  [io.])j  p.  8. 

'^*^  An  Antidote,  etc.  [No.  121]  pp.  122,  125. 

^^  Doctor  Chandterlen  vifited,  etc.  [No.  134]  p.  20. 


[58] 


1653.  T.  Hall:  '°(>  Now  it  cannot  be  imagined  that  John  and  the  Apodles  having  great  mul- 
titudes prefent  at  their  baptifm,  would  thus  D'^Y)  men  and -women /lark  naked  (ox  tslS  iomc 
of  our  Anabaptifts,  ttext  to  naked)  againl^  the  Rules  of  Modefly  and  Civility. 

1653.  H.  Haggar  :  '07  I  believe  I  have  baptized  and  been  at  the  baptizing  of  many  hundreds, 
if  not  thoufands,  and  never  faw  any  baptized  naked  in  my  life,  neither  is  it  allowed 
nor  approved  of  amongft  any  that  I  know  of.  But  fuppose  that  fome  men  have  been  bap- 
tized naked,  when  there  were  none  but  men  together,  would  this  be  fuch  an  unheard  of 
wickcdnefs  ? 

1653.  J.  Goodwin  :  'oS  Befides,  we  do  not  read  in  the  Scriptures  of  any  Baptifmal  Boots,  or 
Baptifmal  Breeches,  or  of  fliifting  garments  to  avoyd  the  danger  of  being  baptized,  or  of 
encircling  zvomen  with  women  after  their  coming  from  the  water  to  falve  their  modefly,  with 
fome  other  devices  now,  or  of  late,  in  frequent  ufe  amongft  our  new  Baptifts  in  the  way 
of  their  practife. 

1653.  W.  Erbury  : '°9  Laftly  let  the  world  judge  if  the  modefly  of  Gofpcl  churches  would 
fuffer  fo  many  naked  women  to  be  dipt  with  men. 

1657.  J.  Watts:  "°  By  this  time.  Sir,  I  hope  you  fee  that  your  dipping  of  women  in  their 
clothes  is  a  new  bufmefs  in  the  church,  and  hath  no  print  or  footfteps  to  be  leen  in  the 
old  way,  or  amongft  the  ancient  Writers  and  Fathers  of  the  former  churches.  Yea,  this 
your  clothes-dipping  alfo,  is  fo  new  a  thing,  that  not  much  above  fourteen  or  fifteen  years 
ago  your  predecelTors,  and  primer  Anabaptifts,  the  Virgins  of  Sion,  and  the  precious 
Sons  of  the  fame,  the  profelytes  of  thofe  dayes,  did  in  the  Evening  refort  and  run 
together,  and  went  naked  into  the  Rivers,  their  Jordan,  and  were  there  dipped  and 
plunged  in  their  naked  bodies  (without  clothes  on  them)  b}'  their  John  Dippers,  or  Dipper- 
Johns  .  .  .  Your  ancient  fathers  did  not  dip  in  your  manner,  nor  is  it  [your  manner]  as 
old  as  your  elder  Brothers,  who  about  13.  or  14.  yeare  ago,  ran  about  the  countr}';  for 
they  did  not  dip  in  your  manner,  in  their  clothes,  but  naked. 

1658.  A.  Houghton:'"  It  is  neither  full  nor  pertinent  to  the  interrogatory  [he  is  referring 
to  the  denial  of  H.  Haggar  above  (1653)] ;  you  fpeak  to  the  Jtaked  dipping,  but  not  to  next 
to  naked  .  .  .  and  if  the  beholding  men  and  worneti  in  their  fliirts,  etc.  be  not  a  coafting 
upon  incivility,  I  have  loft  my  underl^anding. 

I  add  but  a  single  further  witness,  and  he  of  some  years  later :  one  who  will 
hardly  be  suspected  of  scant  information,  or  the  disingenuous  use  of  facts : 

1675.  R.  B.\XTER :  "2  In  the  year  1647,  or  1648,  or  both,  when  Anabaptiftry  began  fuddcnly 
to  be  obtruded  with  more  fucceftful  fervency  than  before,  I  lived  near  Mr.  Tombes,  in  a 
country  where  some  [Anabaptists]  were,  and  within  the  hearing  of  their  practice  in  other 
parts  of  the  land :  And  that  in  that  beginning  the  common  fame  of  Minifters  and  people 
was,  that  in  divers  places  fome  baptized  naked,  and  fome  did  not :  and  that  I  never  to  my 
best  remembrance  heard  man  or  woman  contradidl  that  report  till  this  man  [Mr.  D'An- 
vers]  did  it  in  this  writing.     And  that  no  Anabaptift  contradidcd  it  to  me  that  I  then 


'oe  The  Cottier  in  his  Colours,  etc.  [B.  M.  (E.  65S. 
[2.])lr.  i<5- 

""  Tlie  Foundation  of  the  Font,  etc.  [No.  164] 
p.  102. 

It*  iyater-Di/iping,  etc.  [No.  169]  p.  40. 


•"»  TJu  Madmans  Plea,  etc.  [No.  181]  p.  6. 
""  A  Scribe,  Phari/ec,  etc.  [No.  219]  pp.  20,  64. 
"•  An  Antidote,  etc.  [No.  221)  p.  266. 
^'^-  More  Proofs  of  hifunt  Church-MemberJJtip,  etc. 
[No.  299]  pp.  2S2,  2S3. 


[59] 

or  fince  converfed  with:  And  that  thereupon  in  1659,  I  wrote  againfl;  both  forts  —  thofc 
that  baptized  naked,  and  thofc  that  did  not :  And  after  all  this  when  Mr.  Tombcs  an- 
fwered  my  book,  and  iho/e  vcryfaffages,  he  nrc'er  denied  the  truth  of  the  thing  (though  he 
did  not  fo  baptize  himfelfe)  .  .  .  and  I  appeal  to  impartial  reafon  whether  he  would  not 
then  at  the  time  have  denied  it,  had  it  been  deniable  ...  I  mufl;  confeffe  I  did  not  fee  the 
ferfons  baptized  naked,  nor  do  I  take  it  to  be  lawfull  to  defame  any  upon  doubtful  reports : 
But  when  it  is  a  fame  common,  and  not  denied  by  themfehcs,  either  miniflcrs  or  people  at 
the  time,  I  think  it  is  to  be  taken  fo  much  notice  of  as  the  confuting  of  the  evil  doth 
require.  I  know  not  by  fight  that  there  is  a  Fornicator,  Adulterer,  Murderer,  or  Thief 
(as  I  remember)  in  England:  And  yet  if  I  neither  Write  nor  Preach  to  call  fuch  to 
repentance  left  I  be  a  flanderer  in  faying  that  there  are  any  fuch,  I  think  it  would  be 
foolifli  uncharitable  charity,  and  unrighteous  justice. 

I  leave  my  readers  to  draw  their  own  inferences  from  this  testimony;  freely 
confessing  that  to  my  mind  the  best  solution  of  its  contradictions  is  found  in 
the  theory  that  there  were,  in  the  beginning  of  immersion  in  England,  Baptists 
and  Baptists ;  that,  very  likely,  in  those  rude  and  turbulent  times,  there  may 
have  been  some  among  them  who  were  fanatical,  and  some  who  were  destitute 
of  all  delicacy  of  feeling;  possibly  some  scoundrels  masquerading  in  the  garb 
of  piety  for  the  service  of  their  lusts ;  and  that  Mr.  Baxter  was  quite  right  in 
concluding  that  "  fome  baptized  naked,  and  fome  did  not."  Very  possibly  also 
there  may  have  been  at  times  room  for  honest  misapprehension,  inasmuch  as 
the  garments  sometimes  worn  appear  to  have  been  so  scanty,  that,  to  a  spec- 
tator on  the  bank  of  the  stream,  the  candidate  when  partly  immersed  might 
appear  to  be  wholly  unclad.  And  I  construe  the  note  in  the  margin  of  the 
fortieth  Article  of  the  Anabaptist  Creed  of  1644  which  I  have  cited,'"  as  cor- 
roborative of  this  view ;  being  intended  as  much  on  the  one  hand  to  repress 
undesirable  license  among  their  own  people,  as,  on  the  other,  to  convince 
outsiders  of  the  propriety  of  their  way. 

I  shall  close  this  chapter  by  two  or  three  further  extracts  which  seem  to  me 
worth  publicity,  for  the  light  which  they  cast  upon  some  aspects  of  the  general 
subject. 

In  Watts's  Scribe"*  etc.  (1657)  he  gives  a  brief  statement  of  the  modus 
operandi  of  the  late  baptism  of  two  women  which  had  been  furnished  him  by 
some  Baptist  hand  —  to  the  effect  that  the  two  women  privately  changed  their 
clothes,  and  went  into  the  water  above  the  knees ;  that  the  administrator  tied 
their  clothes  about  their  knees  with  a  string,  and  dipped  them  over  head  and 
ears  ;  and  that  they  then  went  out  of  the  water  and  shifted  themselves,  with  the 
help  of  some  of  the  sisters. 


'"Seep.  41  I       "<  No  iig,  p. 


[6o] 


We  get  a  much  more  circumstantial  account,  in  1646,  in  the  pages  of  Mcr- 
curius  Civicus,^^^  which  is  as  follows  : 

We  have  been  importuned  to  give  you  the  relation  of  the  rebaptizing  of  a  woman  at 
Hempjled  in  HartfordJJiire,  in  a  river  called  Bmirn  End,  hard  by  Bourn  Mill;  which,  to  fliew 
the  flrangenes  of  the  manner,  and  the  madneffe  of  that  Seel,  we  have  here  inferted,  as  from 
authenticke  hands  it  was  fent  unto  us. 

In  the  Parifli  of  Hempftcd  in  Ilartfordfliire  "6  there  liveth  one  Jatncs  Browne,  by  trade  a 
Sawyer ;  by  calling  a  converter  of  holy  fiflers ;  by  perfon  of  a  very  big  and  tall  Mature ;  by 
Religion  formerly  a  good  Proteftant,  diligent  in  hearing  of  fermons,  and  alwayes  fecking  to 
hear  the  bed  men.  Now  of  late  time,  within  thefe  fix  or  feaven  yeares,"7  he  hath  quite  left  the 
Church ;  and  inftead  of  hearing  of  Gods  Minifters  in  publique,  he  is  become  a  preacher  and 
teacher  of  others  (efpecially  of  women)  going  about  from  houfe  to  houfe  preaching  and  teach- 
ing, Inflruding  and  Baptizing;  (or  Rebaptizing)  doing  good  as  they  fay  to  fo  many  as  adhere 
to  his  kinde  of  Teaching:  and  he  is  cither  the  fecond  or  third  man  of  note  for  fpirituall  abili- 
ties (as  the  Brethren  are  pleafed  to  call  them)  in  all  that  part  of  the  Country. 

About  the  middle  of  September  now  laft  paft,  1646,  this  James  Brmvne,  having  on  a  day 
Preached  (or  as  they  call  it  fpoken)  unto  an  afiembly  of  the  Brethren,  where  he  inveighed 
againft  Baptizing  of  Infants;  affirming  it  to  be  a  moft  damnable  popilh  fmne  :  and  that  all  true 
Chriftians  ought  more  to  mourne  and  lament  for  that  they  were  Baptized  when  they  were 
Infants,  then  for  all  the  fmnes  that  ever  they  committed  in  the  whole  courfe  of  their  lives ;  and 
further  fliewing  how  necelTary  and  needful  it  was  to  falvation  (having  attained  unto  a  sufficient 
meafure  of  Faith)  to  be  rebaptized.  One  Afary  IMfey,  wife  of  William  Halfey,  a  holy  woman 
of  the  company,  defired  to  be  baptized  a  new :  fliowing  her  felfe  to  be  very  forrowful  for  the 
blindneffe  of  her  parents,  that  would  have  her  Baptized  in  her  Infancy,  before  flie  knew  what 
it  meant,  and  (lie  (being  then  without  P"aith)  unworthy  of  it.  Browne  having  throughly  ex- 
amined this  his  new  Convert,  and  found  her  to  have  attayned  to  a  competent  knowledge,  the 
examination  ended. 

This  v.-oman  with  Browne  went  into  a  River,  neere  hand  to  the  houfe  of  that  dayes  cxcrcife 
called  Bourne  End  River;  and  there,  neere  unto  Bonrne  End  Mill,  in  a  place  of  the  River 
somewhat  deeper  then  the  ordinary  Channell,  where  having  joyned  together  they  went  down 
into  the  water:  Brcrojne  went  down  in  his  leather  Breeches  in  which  he  ufed  to  go  to  Sawing: 
and  the  woman  went  into  the  water  in  a  paire  of  Linnen  Drawers  onely  to  cover  her  Shame ; 
made  of  purpofe  for  fuch  like  nfes ;  the  reft  of  her  body  being  all  quite  naked. 

In  this  water,  ^rc77C'«^  waflicd  her  body  all  over  from  top  to  toe,  rubbing  her  with  his  hands, 
as  men  do  their  fhecp  when  they  wafli  them ;  and  fo  clenfed  her  from  all  filthincffe  (as  he  faith, 
both  of  body  and  fpirit)  and  throwing  water  upon  her,  ufed  the  words  of  Baptifme :  I  Baptize 
thee,  in  the  7tame  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Sotme,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft:  thrufting  her  head 
three  times  into  the  water  becaufe  three  perfons  in  Trenity :  and  in  this  water  I  wafli  and 
purge  away  all  thy  linnes ;  fending  them  down  the  ftream,  together  with  this  water  that  run- 
neth off  thy  body :  fo  that  now  thou  art  made  as  cleane  again  from  all  finne  and  wickcdneffe 
as  ever  thou  waft  in  thy  Infancy :  nay,  cleaner,  for  now  thy  originall  finne  if  thou  hadft  any,  is 


'^^^ Mercurius  Civicus,  Oct.  S-15,  1646.  [B.  M.  (E. 
3S7-  ['2-])]  P-  24'4. 

"''/vii/cey  [!i :  178]  mentions  Hemel  Hempstead  in 
Herts  as  the  seat  of  an  ancient  Baptist  church,  probably 


but 


founded  "about  the  period  of   the  Revolution,' 
says  nothing  of  Browne  in  connection  with  it. 

'"  Note  how  all  these  lime  references  date  back  very 
nearly  to  the  same  period. 


[6,] 

quite  taken  away,  and  thou  art  now  received  into  the  number  of  Chrifts  chofen  Children ;  and 
made  a  member  of  his  Mydicall  body,  and  mayeft  be  fully  alTured  of  the  Kingdome  of 
Heaven. 

This  being  done,  they  departed  out  of  the  water,  and  went  to  the  place  of  that  dayes 
exercife. 

This  was  feen  and  heard  by  the  Miller  of  Bourne  End,  and  fome  others,  who  had  got 
behind  a  hedge  to  heare  and  fee  the  aflion.  As  they  were  going  out  of  the  water,  the  Miller 
called  to  them,  and  wiflicd  Brmune  to  rub  her  a  little  more ;  for  there  is  (faith  he)  I  doubt  one 
fpot  that  is  not  yet  made  white;  and  they  departed  making  no  anfwer,  and  a  man  with  them, 
that  the  woman  brought  doune  with  her  to  look  to  her  apparell,  which  flic  put  off  ncere  the 
River  fide  when  flie  went  into  the  water. 

It  SO  happens  that  we  have  remaining  a  tract  which  had  its  origin  in  the 
very  company  out  of  whose  amicable  separation  grew  the  first  Calvinistic  Bap- 
tist English  church,  and  which  lets  us  in  to  the  exact  nature  of  the  differences 
then  under  discussion  between  different  portions  of  that  body  as  to  Baptism. 
It  was  written  about  ten  years  after  the  division  by  which  Mr.  Spilsbury's 
church  was  formed,  and  its  references  to  dipping  seem  to  me  to  imply  such 
newness  in  that  discussion,  as  to  corroborate  the  theory  that  Mr.  Spilsbury  at 
first  affused  his  adult  believers.  It  is  entitled  To  Sions  Virgins:  or  a  JJiort 
forme  of  Catechifme  of  the  Doclriiie  of  B  apt  if  me.  In  ufe  in  these  times  that  are 
fo  full  of  Questions.  By  an  antient  member  of  that  long  agoe  gathered  Congrega- 
tion wliercof  Mr.  Henry  Jacob  7aas  an  Inflrument  of  gathering  it,  and  the  Paflour 
worthy  of  double  honour.  Air.  jfohn  lathropp  fuccccding  him,  flow  paflor  in  Nc-iv 
England,  etc.  Printed  in  the  yeare  1644."*  Two  or  three  extracts  from  its 
pages  will  show  us  precisely  how  the  debate  was  then  proceeding.  Beginning 
by  asserting  and  advocating  Infant  Baptism,  with  various  particulars,  it  asks  : "' 

Q.  What  forme  is  to  be  ufed  hi  bapiifme  ? 

A.  The  Minifter  is  to  dip  his  hand,  and  to  powre  cleane  water,  fprinkle  and  wafli  the  finner, 
and  fo  it  is  fully  baptifed. 

Q.  Is  not  dipping  of  the  head  fill  bapiifme  ? 

A.  No,  not  without  powring,  fprinkling,  and  wafliing;  no  more  then  giving  whole  wafers  in 
the  fupper  :  there  was  bread,  but  no  breaking  fliewing  forth  Chrifts  fuffcrings;  fo  whole  rivers 
fhewes  not  forth  Chrifts  bufferings,  powring  Him  out  like  water  befprinkling  all  His  rayment. 

Q.  What  is  it  for  the  finner s  to  goe  into  the  water  thenifelves,  and  come  out  thcmf elves  to  fJicw 
forth  death  and  buriall  1 

A.  A  lying  figne,  to  make  a  figure  of  the  creature,  for  wee  mufl  fee  Chrift  in  the  imploy- 
ment  of  the  Officer,  and  ufe  of  the  Water,  powring,  fprinkling,  wafliing:  there  muft  bee  a 
dipper  dipping  his  hand,  but  not  a  dipped,  but  in  Chrift  himfelfe  who  by  his  ownc  power  puts 
into  himfelfe  the  Rocke  and  fountaiuc. 


'"  No.  30. 


[62] 


Q.  IVhat  fpeakes  powring  out  of  luntcr  ?  '2° 

A.  (i)  It  fpeakes  Chrift  poured  out  like  water.  (2)  Tt  fpeakes  Chrift  powring  out  cleane 
water  upon  loeleevers  wafliing  away  filtli.  {3)  It  fpeakes  powring  out  of  the  fpirit,  fo  that  out 
of  the  belly  of  believers  may  flow  rivers  of  water  of  life. 

Q.  JV/iat  fpeakes  waJJiing  ? 

A.  It  fpeakes  wafliing  from  filthinefl'c  and  clenfmg  from  fin. 

Q.  What  fpeakes  fprinkling  ? 

A.  (i)  It  fpeakes  fprtnkling  the  confciencc  from  dead  works.  (2)  It  fpeakes  our  high 
calling,  being  called  to  the  blood  of  fprinkling. 

Q.  What  doth  Chrifl  teach  beleevers  by  powring  water  on  the  baptized —  Infattts  or  other  ?  '2' 

A.  Chrifl  teacheth  beleevers  to  power  out  their  foules  to  him,  hee  having  powred  out  His 
Spirit  upon  them  giving  them  power  to  be  His  Sonnes  and  Daughters,  fo  there  is  [as?]  great 
ufe  to  eye  Chrift  in  the  ufe  of  the  ordinance  as  once  to  be  baptized. 

Q.  What  is  held  forth  of  Chrifl  in  dipping  the  Baptized  ? 

A.  To  dip  an  Infant  there  is  a  dim  light  of  Chrift,  as  in  the  whole  wafer  no  fhewing  forth 
Chrift  his  fuffering :  but  for  a  creature  to  goe  in  and  out  of  the  water,  the  dipper  to  dip  downe 
the  head,  is  no  fliewing  Chrift  at  all  as  I  can  fee.     I  have  not  fo  learned  Chrift. 

Let  them  take  hcedc  that  teach  these  "new  truths  "  as  they  call  them,  thcfe  new  for  7ns, ^^z 
or  newly  taken  up.'-- 

I  do  not  see  how  a  candid  reading  of  the  multiplied  authorities  here  pre- 
sented, can  fail  to  justify  the  conclusions  which  I  have  drawn. 


^■^  Ibid.  p.  2.  '^'-'^  Ibid.  p.  5.  '^"-- Ibid.  p.  7.  the  general  argument  of  this  chapter,  making  dipping 

"*  .Notice  the  corroboration  here  (1644)  afforded  to        a  new  form  in  or  about  1641. 


■*  '■'-SAa*r5 


fe 
t 


^^.'  C 


CHAPTER   III. 


SOME   CONSIDERATION    OF   THE    HISTORICAL  VALUE   OF   THE.  ALLEGED 
records"    OF   THE    BAPTIST   CHURCH   OF   CROWLE,    ETC. 


'ANCIENT 


^^^^HE  General  Baptist  Magazine  of  London,  in  its  issue  for  July,  1879, 
RlFl^,./i  published  an  article  entitled  "The  Beginnings  of  Liberty,"*  "•1^''-'-' 


which 
'^  was  largely  made  up  of  extracts  from  what  purported  to  be  the 
ancient  records  of  the  "Church  of  Chrift  meeting  at  Epworth,  Crowle,  and 
Weft  Butterwick,"  in  Lincolnshire,  Eng.  A  second  article,  in  the  October 
number  of  the  same  journal  for  the  same  year,  entitled  "John  Norcott,"' 
contained  a  few  additional  extracts.^  The  quality  of  these  was  so  remarkable 
as  speedily  to  attract  attention  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic ;  inasmuch  as,  if  to 
be  depended  upon  for  stating  the  truth,  they  would  go  far  to  modify  not  merely 
the  accepted  annals  of  Nonconformity  in  the  old  country,  but  those  of  the 
Plymouth  Colony  as  well. 

The  Baptist  and  other  religious  journals  of  England  appear  to  have  re- 
ceived these  "quotations"  without  question  a$  genuine  and  trustworthy,  and  I 
have  heard  that  Mr.  Spurgeon  has  on  one  or  two  occasions  made  them  his 
authority  for  some  public  utterance.  One  Baptist  gazette  in  this  country 
referred  to  them  as  settling  certain  .controverted  questions  "beyond  reason- 
able dispute;"*  but  most  of  the  American  newspapers  of  that  denomination 
so  far  as  I  observed  touched  them  gingerly,  if  at  all.  Meanwhile,  although  it 
was  vaguely  stated^  that  these  "ancient  records"  had  been  submitted  to  an 
"antiquarian,"  who,  after  examination,  had  "certified  his  belief  that  they  are 
genuine,  and  refer  to  the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth;"  no  historical  scholar  in 
England  appeared  to  think  the  matter  of  sufficient  consequence  to  make  such 
a  thorough  examination  at  first  hand,  and  on  the  ground,  as  might  furnish  a 


'  General  Baptist  Magazine  for  iSjQ.  Edited  by 
John  Clifford,  A/.A.  LL.B.,  B  Sc,  Fellow  of  the 
Geological  Society,  The  Eighty-First  Volutne.  Lon- 
don, E.  Marlborough  &  Co.  51  Old  Bailey.  %°,  pp. 
SCO,  p.  327- 

» Ibid.  p.  438. 

•The  London  Baptist  of  6  Feb.  iSSo,  I  have  seen  it 


stated  also  contained  the  same,  or  similar,  extracts ;  but 
I  have  never  met  with  that  paper. 

*The  Hartford  Christian  Secretary,  4  Aug.  1SS0. 

"This  statement  was  made  in  the  Christian  Secre- 
tary, of  the  above  date,  apparently  having  been  copied 
from  the  London  Baptist.  I  find  nothing  of  the  sort 
mentioned  in  the  General  Baptist  Magazine. 


(63) 


[64] 

reasonable  basis  for  their  acceptance  as  authentic  data  by  the  student  of  those 
times. 

Anxious,  in  the  absence  of  all  more  competent  endeavor,  to  do  what  I 
could  for  my  own  satisfaction  in  the  matter,  on  6  May  last,  I  went  up  from 
London  on  purpose  to  get  a  look,  if  possible,  at  these  venerable  papers. 
Crowle  is  a  little  market  town  and  parish  of  Lincolnshire,  near  the  confluence 
of  the  Trent  and  the  Ouse  ;  containing  a  few  more  than  3,000  inhabitants,  and 
easily  reached  by  rail  from  Doncaster,  from  which  it  is  distant  some  fifteen 
miles  in  a  direction  a  little  north  of  east.  I  was  so  fortunate  as  to  find  the 
Rev.  Jabez  Stutterd,  who  is  the  pastor  of  the  General  Baptist  Church  in  that 
place,  and  the  copyist  of  the  documents  in  question,  at  home,  and  was  very 
kindly  received  by  him.  On  telling  him  the  purpose  of  my  visit,  and  asking  to 
be  permitted,  under  his  supervision,  to  examine  the  original  ancient  manuscript, 
I  was  grieved  —  more,  I  will  confess,  than  surprised  —  to  be  told  that  that 
original  has  been  for  some  time  lost,  —  it  is  feared  irrecoverably,  —  and  that 
only  his  copy  remains.  This  copy  he  assured  me  that  he  made,  with  all  pos- 
sible care,  about  ff teen  years  before.  This  he  was  very  willing  I  should  transcribe 
in  full,  and  in  the  most  obliging  manner  aided  me  to  do  so.  I  found  several 
passages  to  be  included  which  have  never  been  printed ;  some  of  them,  if  pos- 
sible, of  a  more  extraordinary  character  than  any  heretofore  made  public.  I 
now  proceed  to  give  the  whole  consecutively,  with  Mr.  Stutterd's  appended 
voucher  for  the  fidelity  of  my  work. 

I  should  premise  here,  that,  in  the  matter  of  spelling,  I  found  considerable 
variation  in  different  portions  of  these  extracts  ;  owing,  perhaps  to  Mr.  Stut- 
terd's failure  always,  as  to  that,  to  follow  closely  his  original.  I  have  therefore, 
throughout,  in  this  respect  conformed  to  the  style  of  orthography  indicated  in 
those  parts  which  partake  most  strongly  of  the  characteristics  of  the  date 
assigned  to  them. 

The  firjl  Church  Covenant  —  4  January,  1^99- 

Wee,  this  Church  of  Chrift  (meeting  at  Epworth,  Crowle  and  Weft  Buttcrwick,  in  ye  County 
of  Lincoln)  whofe  names  are  underwritten,  give  up  ourfelues  to  ye  Lord,  and  one  to  another, 
according  to  ye  will  of  God,  and  do  promife  and  covenant  in  ye  prefence  of  Chrift,  to  walke 
together  in  ye  lawes  and  ordinances  of  baptized  belieuers,  according  to  ye  rules  of  ye  gofpel, 
through  Jefus  Chrift.  He  helping  us.  James  Rayner, 

Henry  Helwife, 
John  A  for  ton, 
William  Brcwjlcr, 
William  Bradford, 


Elders  of 
yc  Church. 


[32  signatures,  or  marks.] 


[65] 


Tjp^,  20  Ncrvember,  William  Bradford  baptized  in  ye  old  river  Tome,  below  Epworth 
town,  at  midnight.    Moon  flione  bright.     To  God  bee  praife  euermore.^ 

J 603, 3  September.  Our  poor  people  are  hunted  &  pcrsequted  on  every  fide:  fome  taken 
&  fliut  up  in  prifons. 

Things  have  come  to  fuch  a  paffe  among  us  it  has  been  refolved,  yet  not  without  a  bitter 
flruggle  on  our  parts  as  a  Church  of  Chrifl;  meeting  at  Crowlc,  Epworth  &  Butterwick,  that 
for  the  fake  of  peace  we  fliall  leaue  this  our  dear  native  countrye  &  retire  to  Holland,  wher, 
we  heare,  there  is  freedome  of  religion  for  all  men.  Wee  fliall  haue  to  learne  a  ncwe  language, 
and  get  our  linings  we  know  not  how.  It  is  a  dear  place  &  fubject  to  ye  mifTerics  of  warre : 
is  thought  by  many  of  ye  brethren,  an  adventure  almofl  dcfperate,  a  cafe  intolerable,  &  a 
mifferie  worfe  then  death.  Efpetially  feeing'our  brethren  are  not  acquainted  with  trads  nor 
traffique  (by  which  Hollanders  fubfifte)  but  wee  are  ufed  to  plaine  countrie  life  and  farming. 

Wee  have  refolued  to  pray  vnceafmglie  :  our  chiefe  difificultie  is  wee  cannot  flay,  yet  wee 
are  not  fuffered  to  goe  ;  for  ye  Ports  &  Haucns  arc  fliut  againft  us,  fo  wee  muft  lookc  for  fecrete 
meanes  of  conveyance,  fee  ye  failers,  &  pay  high  rates  for  our  paifage. 

■/■^oj,  J  November.  Brother  Brewfler  found  a  fea-captaine  who  agreed  to  take  us  from 
Bofton  in  this  county  to  Amftcrdam  in  Holland.  Wee  parted  with  our  goods,  repaired  to 
Boflon  as  fecretly  as  wee  could.  Wee  arrived  before  ye  captainc,  &  had  a  wearie  time  waiting, 
fearing  wee  might  bee  betrayed.  The  vefTeF  appeared  at  night.  Wee  embarked  with  our 
goods,  &  now  thought  —  furely  the  bitterneffe  of  death  is  paft.  But,  no,  the  fliip  was  horded  by 
ferchers,  ,&  other  officers,  with  whom  our  Captaine  was  in  league.  In  ye  deade  of  ye  night  wee 
were  turned  out  into  open  boats,  &  fearched  &  ranfaked  by  ye  officials  —  women  as  wel  as  men. 
When  they  had  taken  all  our  money,  bookes  &  goods  from  us,  they  carried  us  before  ye  magef- 
tratcs,  who  ordered  us  off  to  prifon,  where  we  lay  for  a  month :  our  only  crime  being  that  we 
would  worfhij)  God  in  liberty  of  confcience. 

The  monthe  after  the  greater  number  of  us  72.  were  releafed ;  but  Mr.  Brewfter  &  feaven 
others  were  detained  &  conveyed  to  Lincoln  goale,  to  bee  trycd  at  the  Afiizes.  Wee  trudged 
homewards  to  Crowlc,  Butterwick,  Epworth,  where  wee  arrived  pennyleffe,  hungrie  and  tired ; 
but  ye  brethren  met  for  prayer. 

1603,30  December.  The  judge  at  Lincoln  Aflizes  has  been  more  merciful  than  wee  dared 
to  hope.  Our  brethren  &  filters  are  fet  at  libertie.  But  thcfe  perfcqutions  are  unendurable. 
Wee  have  firmly  refolved  to  make  another  effort  to  departe. 

1604,  12  February.  John  Smith,  Vicar  of  Gainfborough,  came  inquiring  about  our  views : 
he  debated  nearly  all  night  with  Elders  Henry  Helwife  and  John  Morton,  who  defended  our 
caufe  well.     Hee  comes  againe  in  a  Ihort  time. 

1604,  7  May.  John  Smith  has  carefully  read  ye  fcriptures  and  is  convinced  wee  are  in 
ye  truth:  hee  tells  us  he  was  deceived  in  ye  way  of  Poedobaptiftry,  &  does  now  embrace 
ye  fayth  in  ye  true  Chriftian  &  Apoftolic  baptifme. 

Hee  difcourfed  fweetly  laft  night  in  Elder  James  Rayners  chamber  from  "Lo,  ye  kingdom 
of  God  is  within  you."     It  was  fweet  as  honie.     He  will  religne  his  church  living,  &  ye  Church 


■This  entire  entry  about  BrndforU  is  not  in  Mr. 
Stutterd's  manuscript  copy,  which  merely  bears  a  mar- 
ginal eador>ement  of    Bradford's  immersion  at   this 


date.  I  transcribe  this  therefore  from  the  printed  ver- 
sion in  the  Magazine;  Rlr.  S.  attesting  the  genuine- 
ness of  that. 


[66] 


of  Chrift  at  Epworth,  wnich   hee  fays   is   ye  true   Church  of   Chrift,  will   receive  him  for 
baptifme. 

ibo6,  24  March.  This  night  at  midnight  Elder  John  Morton  baptized  John  Smith,  vicar  of 
Gainfborough  in  the  river  Don.  It  was  fo  dark  wee  were  obliged  to  have  torch-lights.  Elder 
Brewfter  prayed,  &  Mr.  Smith  made  a  good  confefllon.  Walked  to  Epworth  in  his  cold 
clothes,  but  received  no  harm.  The  diftance  was  over  two  miles.  All  our  friends  were 
prefent.     A  (Irong  wind,  but  faire  aboue-head.     To  ye  triune  God  be  all  ye  praife. 

ibo-j,  10  February.  John  Smith  has  held  filent  meetings  at  midnight  all  this  week  at  Brigg, 
Beltoft,  Epworth,  Buttcrwick.  At  Crowle  ye  parifli  parfon  told  us  hee  would  informe.  William 
Bradford  is  to  holde  fourth  next  Tuefday  at  Crowle  CrolTe. 

7607,  lb  February.  William  Bradford,  from  Aufterfield,  wiflied  to  fpeake  at  Crowle  Crofle, 
but  ye  parfon  prevented  liim,  &  flogged  him  with  his  horfe-whip,  &  set  his  bull-doggc  at  him ; 
but  hoc  awed  ye  brute  off  with  his  flaff e. 

j6og,  22  March.  W^ee  kept  a  folemn  daye  of  prayer.  The  Church  had  fmall  communion 
for  fome  monthes  till  God  put  it  into  our  hearts  to  humble  ourfelves,  rcforme  his  houfe,  and 
fett  upon  his  work  almofle  loft  by  fi.x  yeares  perfeqution. 

7609,  24  March.  John  Norcott,  of  Crowle,  baptifed  at  two  of  ye  clockc  in  ye  morn,  in 
ye  river  Torne,  by  John  Smith,  late  Vicar  of  Gainfborough.  ^ 

itog,  30  March.  A  meeting  of  ye  Church  to-night.  John  Smith,  late  vicar  of  Gainf- 
borough, John  Morton,  Henry  Helwife,  Richard  Carver,  William  Bradford,  James  Ravner, 
William  Brewfter,  Eli  Kelfcy,  John  Rowe.S  met  to  confult  on  removing  ye  Churcii  into  Holland 
on  account  of  perfeqution.9  They  refolved  to  remove  part  of  ye  Church  into  Holland  in 
order  to  ye  quiet  enjoyment  of  ye  ordinances  of  his  houfe  in  Apoftolic  manner.  Lord,  doe 
help  us. '° 

i6og,  4  April.  Received  at  ye  Supper  of  ye  Lord  John  Norcott.  John  Smith  broke 
ye  bread  &  mingled  ye  wine  in  James  Rayners  apple-chamber.  John  Norcott  chofe  as  ye  Elder 
of  ye  Church. " 

i6og,  4  April.  Rev.  John  Smith  ftartcd  in  an  open  boat  from  Buttcrwick  down  ye  Trent 
river  unto  Hull,  thence  to  Holland  (Ghent  or  Leyden)  to  enjoy  liberty  of  confcicnce  in  a 
foreign  country.  John  Norcott,  Henry  Helwife,  John  Morton,  Richard  Carver,  William  Brad- 
ford went.     More  are  to  followe.  John  Carver,  \ 


William  Bradfo7-d, 
Thomas  Prince, 
Edward  Winjlow, 


Elders.  >2 


'This  entire  entry  I  did  not  find  in  Mr.  Stutterd's 
copy,  but  I  insert  it  here  as  having  been  printed  in  the 
General  Baptist  Magazine  [1870,  p.  439],  and  there- 
fore, a  further  extract  of  like  authenticity  with  its 
companions,  so  attested  by  Mr.  S. 

"  This  name  is  printed  John  Wood  in  the  General 
Baptist  Magazine  [1879,  p.  439],  where  the  extract  is 
given. 

'•■  To  this  extract  as  printed  above  in  the  Gen.  Bap. 
Mag.  are  added  tlie  names  of  "  James  Rayner,  Will- 


iam Brewfter  and  John  Morton  — Elder s^  The  date 
tliere  named  for  this  entry  is  4  April,  tboq. 

'"This  last  entrj'  beginning  at  "They  refolved,"  etc. 
is  not  in  Mr.  Stutterd's  copy,  but  is  printed  as  above, 
as  being  duly  copied  from  the  record. 

"  The  same  is  true  of  this  entire  passage. 

'-  I  was  a  little  doubtful  as  to  the  significance  of 
these  four  names  thus  appended,  but  Mr.  Stutterd  said 
that  he  understood  it  as  an  official  certificate  inserted 
in  the  body  of  the  record  to  authenticate  the  same. 


[67] 

ibi3-  John  Rowe  has  come  home  from  Holland,  and  fays  our  friends  haue  no  peace.  The 
babv-baptifcrs  are  verily  mad.  John  Norcott  has  written  his  book  on  baptifm,  and  got  it 
printed.  And  he  [John  Rowe]  has  brought  one  with  him  home.  It  is  quaint,  but  according  to 
ye  Bible. 

jbi4,  December.  Thomas  Fetch  has  returned  very  unwell  from  Holland,  and  brings  ye  fad 
newes  of  ve  fudden  deaths  of  John  Smith  &  John  Norcott  of  putrid  fever,  after  a  few  houres 
illnefe.  They  were  both  buried  in  one  grauc.  Their  confolations  in  Chrill  were  wonderful. 
In  life  united  —  in  death  not  diuided. 

/6/j,  February.  John  Carver,  William  Bradford,  Edward  ^Vin^ow,  William  Brcwller, 
Richard  Carver,  John  Morton,  Henry  Helwifc,  John  Turner,  Thomas  Tinker,  Samuel  Fuller, 
Edward  Fuller,  John  Oldham,  returned  from  Holland.  Oh  how  dejected!  Poore  deare 
foules! 

/6/5,  i6  March.  John  Morton,  William  Bradford,  gone  over  to  Collingham  and  Millerton 
to  confult  Elder  Warner  of  Millerton,  and  put  thinges  in  order.  Thinges  diforderly  at  both 
jjlaces. 

1617,  Ncmevtber.  The  Church  Elders  refolved  to  day  to  fell  their  eftates  &  move  from  Eng- 
land to  provinces  lately  difcovered  by  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  in  Virginia.  Continual  haraffment 
by  Ecclefiaftical  Courtes  and  Bifliops  Mandamufes.  Six  of  our  friends  are  in  Lincoln  gaole, 
charged  with  reading  the  Word,  &  praying  themfelves,  in  flead  of  going  to  church  to  publique 
prayers. 

ibij,  10  N^oz'embcr.  John  Morton  returned  from  Chicheller  where  he  went  as  foon  as  he 
came  home  from  Holland,  to  fet  things  orderly  there. 

j(yij^  .     John   Morton  fell  ficke   and   dyed.     Buried    at  Butterwick  in  ye  front  of 

ye  meeting  door.     A  good  man.     Hee  were  twice  in  Lincoln  Old  Caflle.     Hee  was  a  bright 
light.     May  his  wery  bones  reft  peacefull. 

161S,  I  January.  Agree  to  hold  a  faft  day  &  much  prayer  for  ye  poor  deare  foules  in  Lin- 
coln gaole.     Doe  Lord  hear  us  when  wee  crie. 

i6ig.  John  Carver,  Richard  Carver,  William  Bradford,  Edward  Winflow,  William  Brew- 
fter,  John  Turner,  Thomas  Tinker,  Samuel  Fuller,  &  Edward  Fuller,  fold  yr  eftates  &  decided 
to  goe  to  M erica,  or  wee  (hall  foon  be  in  gaole.     Oh,  thefe  fiery  perfequtors  ! 

1620,  22  July-  Hired  a  fliallop  to  ftart  for  Bofton  Deepes,  there  one  met  us  to  take  us  on 
to  Plimoth.  The  church  met  all  night  this  night  for  folemn  prayer  and  farewel.  Oh  ye  sobs 
ii:  ye  fighes  &  groaningcs  in  ye  fpirit.     Seventy-four  of  us  moving  away. 

Agreed  by  the  Church  not  to  haue  no  commune  with  Robinfon,  and  not  any  of  that  party, 
Becaufe  wee  beleeue : 

I.  Jefus  Chrift  dyed  for  all  human  kinde. 

H.  Ve  Holy  Ghoft  renewes  mans  fallen  ftates. 

in.  Wee  baptife  man  &  woman ;  not  babys.  William  Bradford, 

Enoch  Claphatn, 
Edward  Fuller, 
Ed'vard  U'inJlo70, 
William  Brcwjler, 
Thomas  TinkerM 


'^Mr.   Stutterd's  explanation   with  regard   to   these 
names  was  the  sarae  as  that  before  given  in  a  similar 


case:   "They  seemed  to  be  affixed  to  authenticate  the 
record." 


[68] 


Certificate  of  Authentication. 

I  hereby  certify  that,  in  the  year  1866,  sereral  loose  leaves  of  the  original  church  records  of  the 
Ancient  Baptist  Church  of  Crowle,  Epworth  and  Butterwick,  came  into  my  possession,  and  were 
copied  by  me  -with  great  care;  and  that  the  above  transcript  '4  by  Mr.  Dexter,  has  this  day  been  by 
him  7nade  /«  viy  presence  from  my  copy  then  take/t,  and,  according  to  my  best  knowledge  and 
belief,  is  faithful  to  those  originals,  now  lost. 

Had  these  "  extracts  "  been  first  printed  ///  /////,  as  above,  on  the  American 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  they  could  have  awakened  little  more  than  a  passing 
wonder  as  to  what  manner  of  man  should  have  taken  the  trouble  of  their 
origin  ;  and  would  scarcely  have  been  thought  worthy  of  serious  examination 
—  least  of  all  of  deliberate  refutation.  But  the  critical  study  of  the  begin- 
nings of  Nonconformity  seems  to  be  now  so  much  less  common  in  England 
than  in  America,  that  these  amazing  declarations  —  at  least  such  and  so  many 
of  them  as  Were  then  made  public  —  appear  at  once  to  have  gained  unques- 
tioning acceptance  there,  as  a  genuine  and  valuable  addition  to  the  sources  of 
Separatist  history.  Twice,  at  least,  the  literary  editor  of  the  Nonconformist  and 
Independent'^^  has  cited  them  as  if  they  stood  on  a  par  in  point  of  authority 
with  \Mnthrop's  or  Pepys's  Journal,  or  Bradford's  and  Strype's  Histories; 
while  one  of  the  freshest  issues  of  the  London  press  —  a  volume  called  The 
English  Baptists,  Who  They  are,  and  What  they  have  done,  etc.'*  —  founds  upon 
their  statements  in  regard  to  John  Smyth  an  important  portion  of  its  argument 
and  appeal.  It  seems  to  be  needful,  therefore,  to  give  them  a  consideration  to 
which  in  themselves  they  have  no  claim,  and  this  must  plead  my  apology  for 


"  Mr.  Stutterd  referred  me  to  tlie  extracts  which  had 
been  publislied  in  tlie  General  Baptist  Magazhie,  as 
being  authentic,  except  as  he  then  and  there  amended 
them  in  one  or  two  slight  particulars;  so  that  tl.is 
voucher  covers  all   the   extracts  here  given,  whether 


actually  copied  from  Mr.  S's  manuscript,  or  copied 
from  the  Magazine  under  his  eye. 

1''  In  its  issues  of  30  Sept.  1S80,  and  18  Aug.  18S1. 

'0  Edited  by  John  Clifford,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  and  pub- 
lished by  E.  Marlborough  &  Co.,  1881. 


[69] 


repeating  here  the  offense  which  has  before  been  charged  upon  me,  of  swing- 
ing a  beetle  to  knock  down  a  fly." 

Truth  always  agrees  with  itself.  And  tlie  fairest  of  all  possible  tests  of  the 
value  of  such  a  record  is  applied  in  its  minute  comparison  with  facts  otherwise 
well  known,  which  stand  in  a  relation  so  close  to  it  as  to  demonstrate  its  verity 
or  its  inexactness,  through  its  conformity  or  its  nonconformity  with  them.  To 
such  a  test  I  now  propose  to  subject  the  various  statements  above  made. 

I.  To  begin  with  the. covenant.  I  make  no  objection  to  that  as  being  an 
instrument  probable  for  such  use  at  that  time  ;'"  but  I  must  question  the  plausi- 
bility of  a  small  portion  of  its  phraseology.  The  clause  "whofe  names  are 
underwritten,"  has  no  counterpart  in  any  authentic  early  document  of  the  sort 
which  I  have  ever  seen,  and  appears  to  have  a  somewhat  later  flavor.''  The 
act  of  covenanting  in  those  days  evidently  emphasized  itself  as  a  deed  of 
public  engagement  and  avowal,  rather  than  of  more  private  mutual  written  con- 
tract. This  may  best  be  shown  by  placing  side  by  side  the  earliest  three 
formulae  of  the  sort  with  which  I  am  acquainted  —  thus: 


1593-'° 
Deposition  of  Daniel 

Blxk. 
Being  aflced  what  vowe  or 
promife  hee  made  when  hee 
came  firft  to  yr  Sccietie,  hee 
aunfwereth  &  fayth  yt  he 
made  ys  Protejlation,  viz. : 
That  hee  -wold  7valke  with 


1606.21 
The  Mayflower  Church. 
As   ye    Lords  free   people, 


1 616.22 


Mr.  Jacob's  Church. 
Standing  together,  they  joined 
hands,  and  folemnly  covenant- 
ed with  each    other,   in    the 


joyned  them  felves  (by  a  cov' 
enant   of    the   Lord)    into    a 

Church  Eftate  in  ye  fclowfliip     prefence  of  Almighty  God : 
of  ye  gofi"jclI :  To  walk  together  in  all  Cods 

To  walke  in  all  his  ivayes,     wayes  and  ordinances,  accord- 
made  known,  or  to    be  made    ing  as  he  had  already  revealed, 

y  rejl  0/  yn  Jo  lojige  as  they     knoiun  tinto  them,  according  to     or  JJiould  further  make  them 

did  walke  in  yf  way  of  ye  Lor  de,     their  befl  endcauours,  whaffo-     known  to  them. 

&^  as  farr  as  might  bee  war-     etier  it  fitotild  cofl  them,   the 

ranted  by  ye  Word  of  God.  Lord  affifiing  them. 


"  Golden  Rule,  4  Dec.  18S0. 

"The  New  York  Independent,  in  July,  iSSo,  did 
thus  object.  In  noticing  this  document  as  then  found 
in  tlie  columns  of  Zion^s  Advocate,  it  said: 

So  far  as  our  readinp;  goes,  church  covenants  were 
not  in  use  during  that  period.  They  are  a  rather  more 
mcdern  invention,  coming  into  use  during  the  next 
age. 

Bu:  this  overlooks  the  fact,  abundantly  evidenced, 
that  ihe  church  afterwards  officered  by  Johnson  and 
Ainsworth  was  using  such  a  covenant  in  1593,  and  that 
Neal  gives,  in  almost  the  same  words,  the  covenant  by 
which,  in  1616,  Henry  Jacob's  church  in  London  was 
confederate. 


'"  The  earliest  near  approach  to  this  form  of  words 
which  I  recall,  is  in  the  covenant  of  the  church  in  I'ury 
St.  Edmunds,  21  Dec.  1648  (Browne,  Hist.  Congin.  in 
Norfolk  and  Suffolk,  etc.  395] :  "  Wee  whofe  names 
arc  here  fubfcribed,  etc." 

We  find  the  exact  phraseology  in  the  covenant  of  the 
church  of  which  Doddridge  was  afterwards  pastor,  at 
Northampton,  at  some  date  apparently  a  few  years 
prior  to  1695  [Coleman,  Memorials  Independent  CMC s 
Northamptonshire,  etc.  p.  11]:  "We,  this  church  of 
Chrift,  whofe  names  are  Jtnderivritiett,  etc. 

'"Ha  leian  MSS.  7042,  p.  399. 

"  Bradford,  Hist.  Plim.  Plant.  9. 

^  Neal,  Hist.  Puritans  (ed.  1837),  i:  462. 


[7o] 


The  phrase  "baptized  belieuers,"  also,  although  common  fifty  years  later, 
seems  to  be  of  doubtful  authenticity  in  the  sixteenth  century  in  the  North  of 
England.  The  five  signatures  here  declared  to  be  attached  to  the  covenant,  I 
will  at  present  criticise  no  further  than  to  suggest  that  we  shall  by  and  by  find 
reason  to  question  the  accuracy  of  the  Christian  names  of  two  of  them,  and 
that  there  is  the  best  of  evidence  that  other  two  at  this  time  represented  lads 
respectively  of  eight  and  sixteen  years  of  age  —  most  unlikely  to  be  so  set 
forward  and  honored. 

2.  The  second  entry  suggests  a  few  inaccuracies,  in  little  things,  running 
through  the  extracts,  which  may  be  noted  together  here : 

(i.)  It  is  stated  that  the  "moon  fhone  bright"  at  midnight  of  20  November, 
J^gS.  But  Robert  Watson's  New  Abnanacke,  etc.  for  this  prefent  yeare  J^g8,^^ 
states  that  the  full  moon  for  November  of  that  year,  was  "  on  the  iiid  daye, 
iii  minutes  after  two  of  ye  clocke  in  ye  morning;"  which  would  make  the 
twentieth  day  to  be  two  days  after  the  new  moon  —  so  that  the  amount  of 
moonlight  available  at  midnight  of  that  date,  could  hardly  have  aided  much  in 
the  dipping  even  of  William  Bradford. 

(2.)  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  further  set  down  that,  at  the  baptism  of  John 
Smyth,  24  March,  1606,  although  it  was  "faire  aboue-head,"  it  was  so  dark  at 
midnight  that  they  could  not  see  without  torches.  Of  course,  if  fair  overhead, 
the  moon,  if  there  were  any,  must  have  had  entire  opportunity  to  shine.  But 
I  have  the  authority  of  Prof.  Pickering  of  the  Harvard  College  Observatory,"* 
for  stating  that  the  moon  came  to  the  full  at  the  meridian  of  Greenwich  in  the 
afternoon  of  23  March,  1606 ;  so  that  this  baptism  took  place  the  night  after  the 
full  moon;  when,  with  an  unobscured  sky,  it  could  not  have  been  as  dark  as  is 
here  represented. 

(3.)  It  is  stated  that,  on  12  February,  1604,  John  Smyth  came  inquiring  for 
the  "  views  "  of  these  people,  and  debated  nearly  all  night  upon  them.  But 
12  February,  1604,  was  Sunday;  a  most  unlikely  day  for  one  who  was,  and 
who  —  according  to  the  statement  herein  made  —  remained  for  more  than  two 
years  longer,  vicar  of  Gainsborough,  to  have  been  thus  engaged  fifteen  or 
twenty  miles  away  from  his  own  Church  Service. 

(4.)  The  term  "  Padobaptiflry  "  —  under  date  of  7  May,  1604  —  seems  a 
questionable  one  for  that  time,  and  has  much  more  the  savor  of  one  or  two 
generations  later. 


^  New  A  Imanacke  and  Prognoflication  for  this 
prefent  yeare,  etc.     B.  M.  f  P  P.  2465.']  sub  data. 

""  By  Newcomb's  Tables  of  Solar  Eclipses,  1  infer 


that  the  moon  was  full  March  23,  1606,  in  the  after- 
noon, on  the  meridian  of  Greenwich."  Edward  C. 
Pickering,  &1S.  note. 


[7i] 


(5.)  It  is  ver)' unlikely  that  so  impulsive  and  rapid  a  man  as  we  have  already 
seen  John  Smyth  to  be,  if  he  embraced  "ye  fayth  in  ye  true  Chriftian  &  Apof- 
tolic  baptifme  "  as  early  as  7  May,  1604,  should  have  waited  until  the  last  day 
of  1606"^  —  two  years,  ten  months  and  seventeen  days  —  before  being  rebap- 
tized. 

(6.)  It  is  noted  that  William  Bradford  "  wiflied  to  fpeake  at  Crowle  Croffe" 
on  16  Februar}',  1607,  and  that  this  was  the  "next  Tue/day"  after  10  P'ebruary. 
But  1 6  February,  1607,  was  iMoni/ay. 

(7.)  It  is  declared  that  John  Norcott  was  "chofe  as  ye  Elder  of  ye  Church" 
on  [4  April,  1609]  the  very  day  of  his  admission  to  that  church,  and /nr/Vt'/v 
eleven  months  and  twenty  days  before  he  was  baptized !  This  follows  from  the  fact 
that  by  Old  Style  —  wliich  was  in  universal  use  in  England  until  2  September, 
1752  "*  (or  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty  years  after  the  events  here  set 
down)  —  the  24th  of  March  was  the  last  day  of  the  year;  which  would  make 
4  April,  1609,  the  eleventh,  and  24  March,  1609,  the  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
fifth  day  of  the  same  year.  Improbable  as  such  church  membership  and  prefer- 
ment of  an  unbaptized  man  must  be,  in  itself,  the  more  in  the  case  of  a  small 
church  which,  if  these  records  are  to  be  taken  in  evidence,  already  had  eight 
elders ;  that  unlikelihood  is  increased  by  the  fact,  which  will  be  made  evident 
further  on,  that  John  Norcott  could  not  have  been  born  for  nearly  a  quarter  of 
a  century  after  this  date. 

(8.)  The  entry  of  4  April,  1609,  purports  to  be  certified  by  the  sii^natures 
of  four  Elders.  If  this  be  authentic,  the  predilection  of  this  church  for 
youthful  officers  seems  something  wonderful ;  inasmuch  as,  at  this  date,  Brad- 
ford was  scarcely  nineteen,  Winslow  not  six  months  over  thirteen,  and  Prince 
—  who  was  born  in  1600  or  1601  —  between  eight  and  nine  years  of  age ! 

(9.)  The  sudden  and  unannounced  appearance  in  the  summer  of  1620  of 
Enoch  Clapham  \_he  wrote  his  name  Henoche]  upon  the  scene,  rises  very 
nearly  to  the  acme  of  absurdity.  Nearly  thirty  years  before  ordained  a  minis- 
ter of  the  Established  Church  by  Bishop  Wickham,  after  preaching  some  years 
in  Lancashire,  he  associated  with  the  Separatists  and  went  to  Holland,  thence 
to  Scotland,  then  to  Holland  again,  then  back  to  Scotland,  and  once  more  to 
the  Netherlands ;  whence,  leaving  the  Separation  and  returning  to  England,  he 
preached  in  Southwark  nine  sermons  on  Tares,  out  of  which  he  made  a  book. 
In  the  time  of  the  great  plague  he  discoursed  unacceptably,  and  was  committed 


**  It  must  be  rerpembered  that  these  dates,  if  genu- 
ine, arc  in  Old  Style,  so  that  the  year  began  on  25 
March ;  and  24  March,  1606,  would  be  ten  months 
and  seventeen  days  after,  instead  of  one  month  and 


thirteen  days  before,  7  May,  1606,  as,  by  New  Style,  it 
would  be. 

'"  The  day  after  Wednesday  2  September,  being  called 
Thursday  14  September,  by  Statute  24,  Geo.  II.  c.  2J. 


[72] 


to  the  Gate-house  at  Westminster  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Down  to 
1609  —  that  is,  during  the  first  eighteen  years  of  his  ministry  —  he  had  pub- 
lished eleven  volumes  which  I  can  trace,  after  which  date  I  find  none.  From 
the  general  tone  of  these  books,  I  do  not  believe  it  possible  that  he  could  have 
lived  eleven  years  longer  in  silence,  and  I  therefore  presume  him  to  have  gone 
to  his  rest — he  seems  to  have  had  little  on  earth  —  long  before  the  date  when 
he  is  herein  named  as  at  Crowle.'^^  In  any  event,  taking  his  own  words  in  tes- 
timony, particularly  some  in  one  of  his  latest  known  works,°'  one  would  nearly 
as.soon  have  expected  to  find  Lyman  Beecher  or  Thomas  Binney  joining  the 
Mormons,  as  to  find  Clapham  in  his  old  age  an  Anabaptist  Elder! 

(10.)  As  to  "provinces  "  in  the  autumn  of  1617  '■'lately  difcovered  by  Sir 
Walter  Raleigh  in  Virginia:  "  not  to  press  the  point  that  Raleigh  himself  never 
was  in  North  America;  more  than  three  and  thirty  years — or  the  lifetime  of 
an  entire  generation  —  had  passed  since  his  captains  Amadas  and  Barlow  first 
sighted  Ocracoke, 

(11.)  The  statement  [22  July,  1620]  in  regard  to  "  Plimoth,"  with  its  con- 
cluding reasons  why  Bradford,  Fuller,  Tinker,  Winslow  and  Brewster  deter- 
mined "  not  to  haue  no  commune  with  Robinfon,  etc. ; "  as  Prince  Henry  said, 
is  "  laughter  for  a  month,  and  a  good  jest  forever !  " 

I  now  proceed  to  look  at  these  pretended  records  a  little  more  closely,  in 
connection  with  what  they  have  to  say  in  regard  to  the  more  prominent  of  the 
actors  therein. 

3.  As  to  Samuel  Fuller  two  statements  are  made,  viz. : 

(i.)  /6/j,  February,  that  he  returned  "a  dejected  foule  "  from  Holland; 

(2.)  /dig, ,  that  he  sold  his  estate  (presumably  in  Crowle,  or  its  neighborhood)  to 

"goe  to  Merica." 

Now  "among  the  few  things  that  we  positively  know  about  Samuel  Fuller 
are:  (i)  that  he  lived  in  London  before  going  to  Holland;"'  (2)  that  he  was 
in  .Amsterdam  with  Robinson's  people  in  1608-9;^°  (3)  that  he  buried  a  child 
in  St.  Peter's,  Leyden,  29  June,  1615  ;^'  (4)  that  he  lived  in  the  Pieterjkerkhoff 


"  I  have  taken  these  facts  mainly  from  his  otvn  pen 
in  the  "  Epistle  to  the  Reader"  of  his  Antidoion;  or 
a  Sovcreif;ne  retnfdie  af^ainjl  Schi/mc  and  Here/ie, 
etc.  (1600)  4°,  pp.  48.     [Bodleian.  (H.  9.  Th.;)] 

-'  I  refer  particularly  to  his  Errovr  on  the  Right 
Hand  through  a  Prepojtcrous  Zeale,  etc.  (160S)  12°, 
pp.  79,  [B.  M.  (1020.  e.  9.  [i.])]  in  which  lie  is  tremen- 
dously severe  upon  Separatists  and  Anabaptists.  It  is 
fair  to  add  that  he  followed  this  with  Errovr  on  the 


Left  Hand  through  a  Frozen  Securitie  (160S),  12°, 
[B.  M.  (1020.  e.  9.  [2.])J  in  which  he  vividly  depicts 
the  evils  which  afRicted  the  Establishment,  and  indi- 
cates that  he  held  a  fairly  evangelical  conservative 
position. 

"-"^  Echi-boeck,  etc.  B.  p.  19. 

'"  Lawne's  Prophane  Schi/me,  etc.  11,  24,  76. 

"  Regijter  van  de  Overledene  per/ontn  Begravtn 
binnen  Leyden,  No.  3,  p.  167. 


[73] 


in  Leyden  in  July,  1615;  (5)  that  he  buried  his  wife  Agnes  in  St.  Peter's 
3  July,  1615;^-  (6)  that  he  was  married  again  in  Leyden  27  May,  1617;" 
(7)  that  he  then  lived  near  the  Mare-poort  in  Leyden;^"  and  (8)  that  he  was 
one  of  the  witnesses  of  John  Goodman's  marriage  there,  5  October,  i6ig.^^ 

All  of  which  is  violently  incompatible  with  the  assertions  made  with  regard 
to  him  in  these  papers. 

4.  Of  Edward  Winslow  we  find  four  averments,  viz. : 

(i.)  ibog,  4.  April,  that  he  signed  the  Crowle  record  as  an  Elder; 

(2.)  ibi^,  February,  that  he  returned  to  Crowle,  as  one  of  the  "dejected  foules,"  from 
Holland ; 

(3.)  Jbig, ,  that  he  sold  his  estate  (in  Crowle  or  neighborhood)  "to  goe  to  Merica; " 

(4.)  1620,  22  July,  that,  as  an  Elder  of  Crowle  church,  he  renounced  communion  with 
Robinson  and  his  company. 

Now  of  Winslow  we  know :  (i)  that  he  was  born  at  Droitwich,  Eng.  18  Oct. 
1595  ;  ^*  (2)  that,  by  consequence,  he  was  precisely  thirteen  years,  five  months  and 
seventeen  days  old,  when  represented  above  to  be  signing  church  records  as  an 
elder;  (3)  that  he  lived  in  London  before  going  to  Leyden  ;^^  (4)  that  instead 
of  returning  in  a  dejected  state  from  Holland  in  the  spring  of  16 15  (when  he 
would  be  scarce  five  months  beyond  his  nineteenth  year)  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  ever  was  in  Holland  at  all  before  1617;^^  that  at  Leyden,  13  Maj'-, 
1618,  he  married  Elizabeth  Barker;^'  and  (5)  finally,  that  he  was  in  Leyden 
10  June,  1620;"°  heard  Mr.  Robinson's  farewell  discourse  (for  the  preservation 
of  all  knowledge  of  which  we  are  indebted  to  his  pen)  early  in  July/'  sailed 
from  Delfs-Haven  in  the  Speedwell  12  July;^  and  was  with  the  Mayflower 
company  at  Southampton  making  ready  for  their  voyage  across  the  Atlantic  on 
that  very  July  day  on  which  he  is  above  misrepresented  as  having  renounced 
all  fellowship  with  them.     Comment  is  needless. 


M  Ibid. 

ss  Echt-boeck,  etc.  B.  p.  64. 

^Ibid. 

*•''  Ibid.  p.  90. 

**  Transcript  of  Parish  Record,  A''.  E.  Hist,  b*  Gen. 
Reg;.  1867,  p.  210. 

^'•Echt-boeck,  etc.  B   p.  75. 

•*  He  himself  says  \Hypocrifie  Vnmajked,  etc.  p. 
93]:  "I  livinK  three yeares  under  his  [Mr.  Robinson's] 
Ministery,  before  we  began  tlie  worke  of  Plantaticn  in 
New-England."  This  would  throwback  his  going  to 
Leyden  to  reside,  to  the  summer  of  1617. 

*  Echt-boeck,  etc.  B.  p.  75. 

♦"With  Falltr,  liradford  and  Aller'on  [see  Brad- 
ford, p.  51],  lie  signed  at  Leyden  a  letter  of  date  i-io 
June,  1620,  to  Carver  and  Cushman  in  London. 


<'  He  reports  this  from  memory  [Hypocrijie  Vn- 
majked, etc.  p.  97]  as  if  he  heard  it,  and  his  language 
can  fairly  warrant  no  other  conclusion  than  that  he  di4. 

*-  He  says  [Ibid.  p.  90] : 

And  when  the  Ship  was  ready  to  carry  us  away,  the 
Brethren  that  ftayed  havinp;  againe  folemnly  (bucht  the 
Lord  wiih  us,  and  for  us,  and  we  further  enfjauiug  our 
felve^  mutually  as  before ;  they,  I  lay,  that  (fayed  at 
Leyden  feaAed  us  that  were  to  poe  at  our  Paftors 
houfe  being  large,  where  wee  relreilied  our  felves  after 
our  teares,  with  finging  of  Pfalmes,  making  joyfull  mel- 
ody in  our  hearts,  as  well  as  with  the  voice,  there  being 
many  of  the  Congregation  very  expert  in  Mufick;  and 
indeed  it  was  the  I'wecteft  melody  that  ever  mine  cares 
heard.  After  this  they  accompanyed  us  to  Delfihs- 
Haven,  where  wee  were  to  imbarque,  and  there  fenfled 
us  againe:  and  after  prayer  performed  by  our  Paflor, 
where  a  flood  of  teares  was  poured  out,  they  accom- 
panyed us  10  the  Ship,  etc. 


[74] 

5-  Of  yohn  Carver  three  things  are  declared,  viz. : 

(i.)  ibog,  4  April,  that,  as  Elder  of  Crowle  church,  he  signed  its  records; 

(2.)  ibi^,  February,  that  he  returned  "dejected  "  from  Holland; 

(3.)  ibrg, ,  that  he  sold  his  property  in  that  region  to  "goe  to  Merica." 

For  so  good,  and  probably  great,  a  man,  our  knowledge  of  John  Carver  is 
singularly  scanty.  But  we  do  know  a  few  things,  as  follows,  viz. :  (i)  that,  to 
appearance  —  the  record  is  not  clear  —  he  was  in  Leyden,  and  buried  a  child  in 
St.  Pancras,  10  July,  1609  /^  (2)  that  he  was  in  Leyden  at  a  marriage,  28  May, 
1616;**  (3)  that  he  was  at  another  there,  23  Mar.  1617;*^  (4)  and  at  still 
another  18  August,  1618;'**  (5)  that  he  was  a  deacon  of  Robinson's  church;*' 
(6)  that  he  was  sent  from  Leyden  to  London  as  an  agent  of  Robinson's  con- 
gregation in  the  autumn  of  1617;''^  (7)  that  he  was  sent  again  on  a  like 
errand  in  the  spring  of  1620;"'  (8)  that  he  went  from  Leyden  to  Delfs-Haven 
and  Southampton  with  the  company  in  July,  1620;  (9)  received  a  letter  at 
Southampton  from  John  Robinson  of  date  27  July,  1620;*°  and  (10)  was 
chosen  Governor  of  one  of  the  ships  for  the  expedition  —  a  choice  confirmed 
for  the  whole  Colony,  11  November  following,  in  Provincetown  harbor.^*  Which 
things  could  not  have  been  true  of  him  were  the  Crowle  records  authentic. 

6.  We  now  come  to  jtohn  Norcott,  concerning  whom  these  papers  include 
six  statements,  viz. : 

(i.)  i6og,  24  March,  that  he  was  baptized  in  the  Torne  by  John  Smyth; 

(2.)  ibog,  4  April,  that  he  was  received  at  the  Lord's  Supper  ; 

(3.)  ibog,  4  April,  that  he  was  chosen  an  Elder  of  the  Church; 

(4.)  ibog,  4  April,  that  he  started  with  others  for  Holland; 

(5.)  /6/j, ,  that  he  had  written  a  quaint  but  scriptural  book  on  Baptism,  which  was 

printed  in  Holland; 

(6.)  ibi4  —  A^ovember  Q),  that  he  died  suddenly  at  Amsterdam  of  putrid  fever,  and  was 
buried  in  the  same  grave  with  John  Smyth. 

As  to  these  particulars  there  are  four  things  only  needing  here  to  be  said, 
(i)  As  will  be  seen  by  turning  back,^'  John  Smyth  had  been  in  Amsterdam 
two  or  three  years  at  the  time  when  he  is  above  made  to  have  been  at  Epworth 
performing  this  baptism ;  (2)  he  had  certainly  been  dead  and  buried  in  Am- 


**  Register  van  de  Overledene  persomn,  etc.  No.  3, 
p.  lo.  The  handwriting  is  very  blind,  and  the  name 
may  be  John  something  else,  but  Baron  E'sevier,  ar- 
chivist 01  Leyden,  inclines  to  read  it  Carver.  A  like  rec- 
ord occurs  [A'tx.  No.  4,  p.  S]  under  dale  of  11  Nov.  1617. 

"  Echl-boeck,  etc.  B.  p.  51. 

*■'■  Ibid.  p.  60. 


^'^  Ibid.  p.  77. 

*'  Bradford,  p.  32. 

*'  Ibid.  pp.  30-32. 

^^Ibid.  p.  43. 

^Ibid.  p.  63. 

'■•  Ibid.  pp.  6S,  go. 

'-  p.  2  of  lliis  pamphlet. 


[75] 


sterdam  more  than  two  years,  when  he  is  here  represented  as  dying  and  sharing 
John  Norcott's  interment  there;"  while  (3)  Ivimey^''  states  that  tlie  John 
Norcott,  who  wrote  that  Baptijrn  Difcovered^  etc.  which,  beyond  question,"  must 
be  the  book  referred  to,  as  "quaint,  but  according  to  ye  Bible,"  having  "prob- 
ably shortened  his  days  by  his  excessive  labours,"  after  a  ministry  that  "was 
but  short,"  died  "in  middle  life,"  24  March,  1675-6,  pastor  of  the  church  in 
Gravel-lane,  Wapping.  But  if  he  died  "in  middle  life,"  he  could  not  have 
been  over  forty-five  years  of  age  ;  and  if  he  were  five  and  forty  at  his  death  in 
1676,  he  must  have  been  born  not  earlier  than  1630  —  or  one  and  twenty  years 
after  the  first,  and  sixteen  years  after  the  last  mention  of  his  name  in  these 
Crovvle  "  records."  And,  finally  (4),  the  book  which  is  here  represented  to 
have  been  printed  in  Holland  in  or  about  16 13,  appears,  in  reality,  to  have 
been  first  put  to  press  ?i!oQ\xt  Jifty-seve7i  years  later  in  England.  ^^ 

7.  We  next  reach   jfohn  Mor/on,  or,  as  he  himself  wrote  his  name,  yohn 
Alurton,  of  whom  nine  declarations  are  made,  to  wit,  that : 

(i.)  ijgg,  4  yanuary,  he  signed  the  original  church  covenant  as  an  Elder; 

(2.)  1604,  12  February,  as  a  Crowle  Elder  he  debated  with  John  Smyth ; 

(3.)  1606,  24  March,  he  baptized  John  Smyth  in  the  Don ; 

(4.)  I  bog,  30  March,  he  met  the  church  in  consultation  about  emigration; 

(5.)  /6og,  4  April,  he  started  with  Smyth  and  others  for  Holland; 

(6.)  161J,  February,  he  came  back  among  the  "  dejected  ; " 

(7.)  /6/j,  j6  March,  he  went  to  CoUingham,  etc.  to  order  things; 

(8.)  1617,  10  Ncrvember,  he  came  back  from  Chichester; 

(9.)  ibij, ,  he  fell  sick,  died,  and  was  buried  at  Buttcrwick. 


'^Ibid.  p.  38. 

'^  iii :  296,  298. 

"•"Beyond  question" — because  there  is  neither 
trace  of  any  other  John  Norcott,  nor  of  any  other 
book  on  Baptism  by  any  kind  of  a  Norcott ;  because 
the  phrase  "quaint  but  according  to  yc  Bible"  might 
very  fairly  be  appHcd  (by  a  Baptist  critic)  to  the  book 
in  its  original  form :  and  because  the  author  dedicates 
it  "  To  his  truly  beloved  Friends  and  Brethren  in  ajid 
about  Wapping,"  etc.,  thus  identifying  the  Wapping 
pastor  as  its  author.  Mr.  Spurgeon  —  who  can  hardly 
be  cpngratulated  on  special  eminence  as  an  antiquary 
(non  otnnia  possutnus omttcs)  —  published  a  new  edition 
of  it,  "corrected  and  somewhat  altered,"  in  1878,  in 
the  preface  to  which  he  said  [p.  vij: 

The  little  book  which  is  here  presented  to  you, 
almost  in  its  ancient  form,  was  first  jirinted  in  Holland 
more  than  200  years  aco,  by  a  servant  of  the  Lord  who 
was  in  exile  for  the  faith. 

If  Mr.  Spurgeon  had  taken  the  tro'ible  to  examine 
the  earliest  edition  now  accessible  in  the  British  Mu- 


seum—  which  is  the  fifth  —  [4326.  aa.]  he  would  have 
found  in  it  an  "Epistle  Dedicatory"  to  the  third 
edition,  signed  by  William  Kiflin  and  R.  C.  [Richard 
Claridge],  which  says : 

What  Approbation  this  Piece  hath  found  may  appear 
from  hence;  xhM  fitice  the  Firjl  Edition  0/  it  here  in 
England,  it  hath  been  Kefirintcd  in  Holland,  was  alfo 
lately  tranflated  into  Wclfti;  and  now  Krowing  I'carce 
and  much  afked  for,  the  nookfeller  hath  been  Advifed 
to  give  it  another  IniprelTion. 

"«  Watt  does  not  mention  the  book.  The  Dr.  Will- 
iams Library  has  the  third  edition,  of  date  1694,  the 
earliest  which  I  have  met  with.  We  have  then  [see 
last  note)  these  four  data:  (i)  The  third  edition  in 
1694;  (2)  The  j-^fo«</ (English)  published  in  Holland; 
(3)  the  first,  publislied  in  England  while  its  author  was 
pastor  at  Wapping.  (4)  As  he  says  in  his  dedication : 
"  Our  Sun  is  going  down,  eternity  is  upon  us,"  etc.,  it 
is  fairly  to  be  i^resumed  that  this  first  edition  was  pub- 
lished not  long  before  his  death  in  March,  167?^;  from 
all  which  its  date  cannot  reasonably  he  put  earlier  than 
i6;o,  where  I  place  it  [App.  No.  276J. 


[76] 


Put  by  the  side  of  the  above  dates  and  declarations  the  following  facts,  viz. : 
(i)  that  John  Murton  was  born  in  1582  or  1583,"  and  was  consequently  little 
if  any  more  than  twenty-one  years  of  age  when  he  is  represented  as  being  so 
effective  in  debate  as  an  Elder  with  an  old  hand  like  Smyth;  (2)  that  he  lived 
in  Gainsborough  (or  Queensborough'^)  before  going  to  Amsterdam ;  (3)  that 
he  was  in  Amsterdam  23  August,  1608,  because  he,  on  that  date,  announced  to 
the  magistrates  of  that  city  his  intention,  being  25  years  of  age,  to  marrj'  Jane 
Hodgkin  of  Worksop,  who  was  23;^'  (4)  that,  in  the  room  of  his  baptizing 
Smyth  in  the  Don  in  1606,  at  some  time  in  1608  Smyth  rebaptized  Iwn  at  Am- 
sterdam •j'^  (5)  that  so  far  from  coming  among  the  "poor  dear  dejected  "  back 
to  Crowle  in  February,  1615,  he  had  two  or  three  years  before  returned,  in 
good  courage,  to  England  and  founded  a  Baptist  church  in  London  at  New- 
gate;" and  (6)  that  instead  of  dying,  and  laying  his  "wery  bones,"  in 
"ye  front  of  ye  meeting  door"  at  Butterwick  in  1617,  he  was  alive  and  vigorous 
in  his  London  pastorate  as  late  as  13  November,  1626." 

8.  We  have  next  eleven  entries  touching  William  Bradford^  thus : 

(i.)  i^gS,  20  Noz'ember,  he  was  baptized  in  the  Torne; 

(2.)  i^gg,  4  January,  was  an  Elder  of  Crowle  church; 

(3.)  iboi,  10  February,  announced  to  "  holde  fourth  "  at  Crowle  Crosse ; 

(4.)  j6oi,  16  February,  tried  it,  but  the  parson  and  his  dog  prevented; 

(5.)  jbog,  30  March,  met  with  the  church  about  emigrating; 

(6.)  i6og,  4  April,  started  after  liberty  of  conscience  in  an  open  boat; 

(7.)  rbog,  4  April,  signed  record  as  Elder  stating  that  fact; 

(S.)  /6/5,  February,  came  back  from  Holland  among  the  "deare  dejected; " 

(9.)  161^,  16  March,  started  for  Collingham,  etc.  to  set  things  to  rights ; 

(10.)  J6ig, ,  sold  his  property  in  Crowle,  or  thereabouts,  to  "goe  to  Merika ;  " 

(ii.)  J620,  22  July,  renounced  communion  with  Robinson  and  his  "party." 

Compare  with  the  above  the  following  facts,  viz. :  (i)  we  have  the  evidence 
of  the  Austerfield  Parish  Records,  remaining  in  beautiful  parchment,  that  William 
Bradford  was  baptized  19  March,  1589-90" — he  would,  consequently,  have  been 
only  eight  years,  eight  77ionths  and  one  day  old  when  he  is  said  to  have  been  im- 
mersed as  an  adult ;  (2)  he  would  have  been  only  nine  years,  nine  months  and 
sixteen  days  old,  when  he  is  here  represented  to  be  signing  the  covenant  as  an 


^  Amsterdam  Puy-boeck,  1606-12.  s.  d.  23  Aug.  1608. 

^*  The  record  says  Qrtcynsborch,  which  might  stand 
for  cither.  The  Dutch  scribes  spelled  as  they  liked, 
T.  /r-  Riossom  is  once  Bliise,  and  Goodman  Cocdmoer  I 

™  /did. 

'^  See  pp.  10,  30,  32,  anie. 


*'  See  p.  42,  anie.  See  also  Truths  Victory,  etc. 
(1645)  p.  19. 

^-Letter  o/C.  C.  Arcsto,  Ezians,  ii :  25,  33. 

•"■^  1  cite  the  original.  A  transcript  may  also  be  found 
in  Hunter.  Collections  coitcerning  Scrooby  Church, 
etc.  {1S54)  p.  igS. 


[77] 


Elder  of  the  church  ;  (3)  he  would  have  been  but  sixteen  years,  fen  months  aiid 
i^ventX'Six  days  old  on  that  memorable  day  of  the  encounter  with  the  parson 
and  "the  bull-dogge;"  (4)  his  own  history  shews ^*  that  having  lived  in  Am- 
sterdam "aboute  a  year,"  as  early  as  in  February,  1609,  he  was  making  arrange- 
ments, which  were  perfected  by  the  first  of  May  of  that  year,  to  remove  to 
Leyden  /^  (5)  instead  of  coming  back  "dejected  ''  from  Amsterdam  to  Crowle 
in  Februar}'^,  1615,  he  was  assisting  Samuel  Lee  to  citizenship  in  Leyden  on 
19  October  of  that  year  ;'*  instead  of  selling  property  in  Crowle  and  its  neigh- 
borhood preparing  to  "goe  to  Merika"  in  1619,  he  sold  in  Leyden  19  April  of 
that  year  a  house  on  the  north  side  of  the  Achtcrgracht^^  and,  7  June  follow- 
ing, aided  William  Ring  to  become  a  citizen  there;''*  and  in  1620,  shared  in 
the  departure  of  the  Pilgrim  fathers  from  Delfs-Haven,  and  all  their  fortunes 
at  Southampton,  Dartmouth  and  Plymouth,  with  their  subsequent  Mayflower 
voyage  —  there  being  no  evidence  that  he  ever  set  foot  in  England  from  the 
day  of  his  first  leaving  it  for  Amsterdam,  till,  in  July,  1620,  he  disembarked 
from  the  Speedwell  in  Southampton  Water. 

9.  Turn  we  now  to  William  Brewster,  as  to  whom  there  are  the  eight  follow- 
ing assertions,  viz. : 

(i.)  ^599,  4  yanuary,  that  he  was  an  Elder  of  Crowle  Church ; 

(2.)  i6oj,j  Na-jcmbcr,  that  he  agreed  with  a  sea-captain  to  remove  72  of  the  Crowle  Com- 
pany from  Boston  to  Amsterdam  ; 

(3.)  iboj,  Novevibcr,  that  by  treachery  he  was  lodged  in  prison,  and  lay  a  month  in  Lin- 
coln jail ; 

(4.)  1606,  24  March,  that  he  offered  prayer  at  the  midnight  baptism  of  Smyth  in  the  Don ; 

(5.)  idog,  JO  March,  that  he  met  to  consult  with  the  church  about  emigration  ; 

(6.)  i6fj,  February,  that,  as  one  of  the  "deare  dejected,"  he  returned  from  Holland; 

(7.)  i6ig, ,  that,  with  others,  he  sold  his' estate  in  or  near, Crowle;  and 

(8.)  1620,  22  July,  that  he  joined  with  Bradford,  Clapham,  Fuller,  Winslow  and  Tinker  in 
renouncing  communion  with  Robinson. 

It  will  be  quite  sufficient  to  set  the  memory  of  William  Brewster  right  con- 
cerning these  asseverations,  if  we  note:  (i)  that,  from  i  April,  1594,  for  many 
years  he  filled  the  place  at  Scrooby  as  agent  of  the  Archbishop  of  York  which 
his  father  had  filled  before  him,  and  was  Postmaster  there  \^  and  that  he  con- 
tinued thus  in  Government  employ  until  30  September,  1607  '° — a  fact  which, 


M  Hist.  Plim.  Plant,  etc.  i6. 
"  Gerechls  Dng-boeck  (Leyden),  (G.)  p.  34. 
"'^  Poorter-boeck    (Leyden),    bcgonsl    in    dm    Jure 
/Ooj,  enile  Ge-eijn-dight  in  den  Jart  l6jS,  (F.)  p.  91. 


"^  0/  Dragts-boecken-van  huizeit  (V.  V.)  p.  1  ^5. 

'^  Poo'i-ier-boeck,  i\.c   (F.)p.  120. 

f'  P.  R.  O.  Dom.  Eliz.  vol.  233,  no.  48. 

'"  Hunter,  Collections,  etc.  68. 


[-8] 


in  those  jealous  days,  must  have  been  irreconcilable  with  the  first  four  of 
them  ;  (2)  that,  with  Bradford  and  the  others,  he  had  been  in  Amsterdam  a 
twelvemonth,  and  was  just  about  removing  with  them  to  Leyden,  at  the  date 
of  the  fifth;''  that  instead  of  returning  to  England  in  1615,  he  was  chosen  by 
John  Robinson's  church  in  Leyden  "an  affiflant  unto  him  in  ye  place  of  an 
Elder;""  that  in  1617,  1618  and  1619  he  was  publishing  books,  Latin  and 
English,  in  Leyden  ;"  that  in  i6ig  he  was  sent  to  London  as  an  agent  in  the 
negotiations  about  the  removal  to  New  England  ;"*  and  that,  in  1620,  instead  of 
renouncing  communion  with  Robinson  and  his  company,  he  led  off  in  the  emi- 
gration to  New  Plymouth  in  a  harmony  of  both  doctrinal  and  practical  feeling, 
desire,  and  design,  with  his  beloved  and  honored  pastor  which  was  so  perfect, 
that  it  is  hard  to  say  whether  the  Crowle  falsehood  which  declares  the  contrary, 
excels  in  its  unveracity  or  its  impudence/^ 

ID.  I  have  reserved  inquiry  as  to  jfohn  Smyth  until  the  last  needing  special 
investigation  as  to  the  tone  of  these  "  records "  with  regard  to  them,  partly 
because,  in  some  aspects,  he  was  the  most  noteworthy  of  the  company;  but 
mainly  because  his  case  has  one  peculiarity.  It  can  scarcely  be  called  violently 
probable,  yet  the  human  mind  is  able  to  conceive  it  possible,  that  there  should 
have  been  contemporaneously  living  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  in  England  and  thereabouts,  two  Samuel  Fullers,  and  two  Edward 
Winslows,  and  two  John  Carvers  (there  surely  were  not  two  John  Norcotts), 
and  two  John  Murtons,  and  two  William  Bradfords,  and  two  William  Brewsters, 
concerning  one  set  of  whom  the  statements  made  in  these  Crowle  papers  might 
be  facts ;  as,  concerning  the  other  set  of  whom,  the  statements  which  I  have 
accumulated  above  from  various  authentic  sources  surely  were  facts  ;  so  that  an 
enthusiastic  and  inappeasable  champion  of  those  "  records  "  might  still  insist 
that,  granting  the  truth  of  all  which  I  claim  to  be  true,  all  which  those  docu- 
ments allege  may  still  be  also  true  —  of  other  men  of  the  same  names.  Waiv- 
ing then,  for  the  present,  all  inference  from  what  has  gone  before,  it  will  be 
agreed  on  all  hands  as  inconceivable  that  there  can  have  been  two  John 
Smyths,  both  vicar  of  Gainsborough,  in  and  about  1600.  This  name,  then,  fur- 
nishes the  opportunity  for  a  crucial  test,  which  shall  now  be  applied.  Nine 
distinct  declarations  are  made  concerning  him.     Thus  : 


"  Vide  Bradford's  Hist.  Plym.  Plant.  i6;  Dialosue, 
etc.  Voung-,  466. 

'-  Bradford,  p.  17. 

'•''  See  the  titles  of  three  such  volumes  in  Latin  and 
seven  in  EnRlish,  tinder  these  three  year;,  in  the  A]^ 
peiidix   of  Congregatio7utliim  as  Seen,   etc.     Besides 


these  I  have  surely  traced  other  two  in  Latin,  and  one 
in  English. 

'^  Bradford,  p.  30. 

""This  lies  on  the  face  of  Bradford's  whole  account 
of  the  removal,  with  the  arrantiements  that  led  to,  and 
the  correspondence  which  followed,  it. 


[79] 

(i.)  1604,  12  February.     "John  Smith,  Vicar  of  Gainfborough,"  inquired  and  debated. 

(2.)  1604,  7  May.  He  acknowledged  his  conversion  to  Anti-paedobaptistry,  proposed  to  be 
rebaptizcd,  discoursed  sweetly,  and  announced  his  intention  to  resign  his  vicarage. 

(3.)  160b,  24  March.  After  subsequently  waiting  a  time,  for  him,  most  extraordinary  [two 
years,  ten  months  and  seventeen  days]  he,  "John  Smith,  Vicar  of  Gainfborough,"  was  bap- 
tized in  the  Don,  having  "made  a  good  confeffion." 

(4.)  iboy,  10  February.  He  is  declared  to  have — another  extraordinary  thing  for  him  — 
been  holding  "silent  meetings." 

(5.)  idog,  JO  March.  He  —  "late  Vicar  of  Gainfborough"  —  shared  in  the  church  debate 
about  emigrating  to  Holland, 

(6.)  idog,  4  April.  He  administered  the  sacrament  in  an  "apple-chamber,"  and  received 
John  Norcott  to  the  church. 

(7.)  ibog,  4  April.  On  the  same  day  —  it  was  Tuesday  —  he  started  with  John  Norcott 
and  others  down  the  Trent  in  an  open  boat,  bound  for  Hull,  Holland,  and  liberty  of  con- 
science. 

(8.)  ibog,  24  March.  He  and  Norcott  seem  to  have  come  back  together  from  the  Low 
Countries,  in  order  that  he  might  baptize  that  mythical  young  man  — who  had  been  alreadv,  in 
his  unbaptized  state,  a  church  member,  and  an  Elder,  for  eleven  months  and  twenty  days  —  in 
the  Torne ;  —  doubtless  better  than  all  Dutch  w'aters  in  which  to  wash  and  be  clean. 

(9.)  ibi4,  December.  The  painful  news  of  his  decease — and  that  of  the  mythical  young 
man  —  both  dying  suddenly  oi  putrid  fever,  and  sharing  one  grave,  reaches  the  bereaved 
remnant  at  Crowle. 

To  take  the  last  first,  we  have  already  seen  that  the  burial  records  of  the 
Niewe  Kcrk  at  Amsterdam  contain  the  proof  that  Smyth  was  interred  there 
J  September,  1612,  or  a  little  more  than  huo  years  previous  to  the  date  here 
assigned ;  and  that  he  died  of  a  consumption,  having  been  sick  seven  weeks^^ 
We  have  also  already  seen  that  the  third,  fourth,  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  of 
these  statements  cannot  be  true,  because  Smyth  went  to  Amsterdam  with  his 
Gainsborough  company  in  October  or  November,  1606,"  and  there  is  no 
evidence  that  he  ever  revisited  England.  As  to  the  first,  second,  and  eighth, 
all  which  can  be  needful  to  destroy  any  possible  remnant  of  probability  which 
in  any  mind  may  still  attach  to  them,  will  be  to  recall  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Smyth  never  accepted  the  Baptist  theory  of  believers'  baptism  until  i6og;"* 
and  that  in  the  very  month  in  which  he  is  here  represented  to  have  been  bap- 
tizing Norcott  in  the  Torne  in  the  North  of  England,  having  been  excommuni- 
cated from  the  church  he  had  formed  at  the  date  of  his  se-baptism  in  Amster- 
dam, he  was  vainly  asking  a  Mennonite  church  in  that  city  to  receive  him., 
while  Murton,  Hehvys,  Pygott  and  Seamer  were  remonstrating  against  such 
reception  ;''  with  some  further  proof  of  the  uniform  Px-dobaptist  tenor  of  his 


"  See  pp.  37  and  38,  and  notes  167,  166,  165,  ante.         I        "  See  p.  9,  atiie. 

"  p.  2  and  note  13,  aiU*.  <        '"  See  pp.  36  and  37,  ante. 


[80] 

books  down  to  his  CharaHcr  of  the  Beajl,  printed  also  in  1609.  Let  us  glance 
at  these. 

(i.)  Principles  and  Inferences,  etc.  [1607].  This  of  course  was  sent  forth 
three  years  after  tliese  "  records  "  assure  us  that  its  author  had  renounced 
"Paedobaptiftry,"  and  one  year  after  they  say  he  had  been  rebaptized.  Yet 
among  these  203  Principles  or  Inferences,  there  is  not  the  slightest  reference 
to  the  mode  or  subjects  of  Baptism  —  a  thing  incredible  were  the  author 
already  a  convert  to  the  notion  that  that  subject  requires  to  be  made  the 
corner  stone  of  churches. 

(2.)  The  Diferences  of  the  Churches  of  the  Separation,  etc.  [summer  of 
1608].^  Here,  again,  although  the  book  was  expressly  written  to  "clear 
further  "  the  truth,  he  never  once  alludes  to  Baptism  as  a  subject  of  doubt, 
difficulty,  or  debate  —  showing  that  his  opinions  on  that  subject  still  remained 
at  one  with  those  then  common  among  the  Separatists. 

(3.)  Paralleles,  Censures,  Obfervations,  etc.  [I  think  late  in  1608,  although 
dated  1609],  Here,  down  almost  to  the  very  epoch  of  his  re-baptism  by 
se-baptism,  we  find  him  : 

(<?)  identifying  himself  still  with  "  the  Brownifis,"  whose  doctrine  he  declares 
to  be  "  the  vndoubted  truth  of  God  ; "  " 

{Ji)  denouncing  Anabaptists,  in  common  with  "  Papists "  and  "Arrians," 
etc.  as  "  heretiques  ; "  ^^ 

ic)  objecting  against  the  baptism  of  the  Church  of  England,  not  because  of 
any  defect  in  manner,,  or  error  as  to  its  subjects,  but  simply  because  that  church 
is  "  not  the  true  body  of  Chrill,  the  true  Church  of  God,  therefore  all  the  holy- 
things  are  profaned  when  they  are  ther  adminiftred ;"" 

(^)  and,  finally,  by  distinctly  saying  that  all  which  he  asks  as  to  reform  on  the 
subject  of  baptism  i?i  the  Church  of  Euiiland,  is  that  infant  baptism  "  be  admin- 
iftred fimply,  as  Chrift  teacheth  :  without  Godfathers,  the  croffe,  queftions  to 
infants,  etc."  ^* 

This  must  necessarily  be  conclusive  that  down  to  a  period  nearly  five  years 
later  than  the  date  of  his  alleged  full  conversion  to  immersionist  views  — 
saying  nothing  of  dipping,  which  he  never  accepted  —  Smyth  had  not  gotten 
so  far  as  that  fundamental  tenet  of  the  Baptists,  of  baptism  for  adult  believers 
alone.  No  Baptist  out  of  a  lunatic  asylum  could  have  written  the  sentence 
last  quoted  above ! 


*"  See  p.  8,  and  note  42,  ante. 
"rP-  '09.  119,  IJ5. 


•-  See  p.  4,  note  27,  ante. 
8*  pp.  117,  139,  140. 


[8i] 

I  find  in  these  alleged  records  of  this  ancient  Baptist  church,  eighty  dis- 
tinct statements,  as  to  twenty  different  individuals.  I  have  now  minutely,  and 
as  I  trust  candidly,  examined  from  them  two  assertions  as  to  Samuel  Fuller, 
four  as  to  Edward  Winslow,  three  as  to  John  Carver,  six  as  to  John  Norcott, 
nine  as  to  John  Murton,  eleven  as  to  William  Bradford,  eight  as  to  William 
Brewster,  and  nine  as  to  John  Smyth  —  fifty-two  in  all;  and  have  proved  every 
one  of  them  to  be,  if  not  impossible,  at  least  improbable  with  an  intensity  in 
most  cases  equivalent  to  moral  incredibility.  I  have  pointed  out,  further, 
eleven  cases  of  palpable  disagreement  with  well  established  facts.  As  to 
Henoch  Clapham  and  Thomas  Prence  I  have  shown  further  unlikelihoods. 
Thomas  Fetch  I  never  heard  of  before,  and,  considering  that  the  only  thing 
which  he  is  said  to  have  done,  is,  to  have  brought  from  Holland  the  misstate- 
ment that  a  man  who  had  died  of  a  lingering  consumption  two  years  before, 
was  then  just  suddenly  deceased  of  putrid  fever,  I  never  care  to  hear  of  him 
again.  This  disposes  of  eleven  of  the  twenty  persons,  and  of  six  and  sixty  of 
the  eighty  "facts"  —  leaving  nine  unimportant  men  and  fourteen  unessential 
assertions  unexamined  as  yet ;  concerning  whom,  and  which,  more  directly. 

The  candid  reader  who  bears  in  mind  the  two  facts  :  (i)  that  in  the  case  of 
the  eight  prominent  persons  whose  relation  to  this  record  has  been  considered, 
every  one  of  the  two  and  fifty  averments  made  in  regard  to  them  has  been  shown 
to  be  unfounded;  and  (2)  that  in  the  case  of  John  Smyth,  "vicar  of  Gainf- 
borough,"  well-meant  mistake  was  impossible,  and  no  conclusion  other  than 
that  of  an  attempt  at  the  deliberate  perversion  of  history  remains  credible ; 
will  now  be  prepared  to  join  me  in  the  conclusion  that  these  newly-discovered 
leaves  out  of  an  old  oaken  chest  are — falsiim  in  uno,  falsiwi  in  oninibus  —  all 
together,  an  unblushing  forgery ;  undertaken  by  some  excessively  ill-informed 
person,  and  carried  out  in  a  singularly  stupid  and  bungling  manner.  A  few 
words  further  on  that  subject. 

And  here  let  me  say,  at  once,  that  I  acquit  the  Rev.  Mr.  Stutterd  of  all 
complicity  with  such  an  attempt,  and  all  suspicion  of  it.  He  impressed  me 
as  an  honest  and  good  man,  much  more  likely,  in  his  comparatively  uncultured 
simplicity  in  regard  to  such  subjects,  to  be  imposed  upon,  than  to  undertake 
imposition  upon  others.  In  answer  to  my  inquiries  at  the  time  he  told  me  that 
the  "original  records"  which  he  copied,  seemed  written  neither  on  paper  nor 
parchment,  but  on  something  reminding  him  of  plantain  leaf;  that  the  ink  now 
and  then  was  very  faded ;  and  that  the  leaves  were  much  decayed  and  eaten 
by  small  red  insects  discernible  under  a  magnifier  ;  so  that  in  parts  it  was  only 
with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  the  contents  could  be  made  out  at  all.  Anxious 
to  get  possession  of  all  the  facts,  I  addressed  him  a  note  on  my  return  to 
6 


[82] 


London,  which,  with  his  reply,  I  append — for  convenience  placing  my  ques- 
tions and  his  answers  in  parallel. 


Grand  Hotel,  London,  9  May,  iSSi. 

Rev.  Jabez  Stutterd, 

Dear  Sir :  Two  or  three  inquiries  have  sug- 
gested themselves  to  me,  which  I  ought  to 
have  proposed  to  you,  in  reference  to  the  very 
interesting  records  of  your  church,  when  I 
saw  you  the  other  day :  but,  as  they  escaped 
me  at  that  time,  I  venture  to  send  them  now, 
and  ask  you  to  be  so  good  as  to  reply  to  them 
in  the  enclosed  envelope.  I  will  be  glad  to 
know : 

I.  As  nearly  as  possible,  when,  by  whom, 
and  in  what  place,  were  these  leaves  of  the 
old  record  discovered  ? 


2.  Was  any  public  announcement  —  so  far 
as  j'ou  know — of  that  discovery  made  at  the 
time  ? 


3.  Of  whom  did  you  receive  them  for  the 
purpose  of  copying  them;  and  to  wliom,  and 
when,  did  you  return  them  after  you  had 
copied  them  ? 

4.  Did  you  copy  all  of  that  record  which 
referred  to  matters  of  public  interest,  of  the 
general  character  of  those  which  you  did 
copy  ? 

5.  When  were  you  first  made  acquainted 
with  the  fact  that  the  originals  are  since  lost ; 
and  from  whom  did  you  learn  it  ? 


Crowle,  I-inco!nshire, 

Via  Doncaster, 

12  May,  18S1. 
My  dear  Sir, 

Yours  of  yesterday  arrived,  but  found  m.e 
from  home. 


6.  Do  you  think  any  thorough  and  sufficient 


1.  The  old  records  were  discovered  at  But- 
terwick  in  a  chest  of  an  old  Baptist  family,  by 
the  Rev.  Smith  Watson  many  years  ago.  In 
1866  I  first  saw  them  at  Revd.  Smith  Wat- 
son's, and  copied  the  7  or  8  leaves,  moth- 
eaten  and  decayed  as  they  were.  Some  two 
or  three  weeks  I  had  them. 

2.  No  public  announcement  was  made  at 
the  time.  At  length  by  the  wish  and  desire 
of  the  members  and  deacons  of  the  Church, 
and  not  on  my  own  responsibility,  a  portion 
of  it  was  sent  to  our  own  Magazine  for  pres- 
ervation. 

3.  I  received  them  of  Revd.  Smith  Wat- 
son. And  when  copied  they  were  returned 
to  his  care  again,  after  being  carefully  copied 
in  the  presence  of  some  of  our  Brethren. 
This  was  in  1S66. 

4.  I  copied  all  I  possibly  could  which  re- 
lated to  matters  of  interest  —  from  the  damp 
and  moth-eaten  records. 

5.  About  four  years  ago,  when  preaching  at 
Butterwick,  we  wanted  to  sec  them,  and  refer 
to  them  again,  but  we  could  not  find  them 
anywhere.  When  Smith  Watson  died  his 
goods  and  chattels  were  divided  amongst  his 
friends,  who  all  say  they  have  not  seen  any- 
thing of  them  [/.  e.  the  records].  These  par- 
ticulars I  have  had  over  and  over  again  from 
his  relatives. 

6.  A  thorough  and  severe  search  has  been 


[83] 


search  has  been  made  to  recover  the  lost 
manuscript;  and  is  it  to  your  mind  perfectly 
clear  that  it  is  now  of  no  use  to  undertake  at 
Epworth,  or  Butterwick,  or  elsewhere,  any 
further  inquiry  for  the  missing  records? 


7.  Should  you  imagine  there  could  be  the 
slightest  probability  that,  in  copj-ing  the  man- 
uscript, in  its  confessedly  imperfect  and  illegi- 
ble state,  you  mistook  and  miscopied  names ; 
so  that,  for  the  names  of  William  Bradford, 
John  Carver,  Edward  Winslow,  Samuel  Ful- 
ler, and  John  Smyth  —  for  example  —  as 
given  in  your  copy,  other  names  ought  to  be 
substituted,  in  order  exactly  to  render  the 
original  ? 

8.  Is  there  the  slightest  doubt  in  your  mind 
that  the  fragment  which  you  copied  was  a 
getiuine  portion  of  the  original  records  of  your 
church  ?  Or  do  you  conceive  it  as  barely 
possible  that  some  mischievous  or  designing 
person  could  have  prepared  such  an  (appar- 
ently) ancient  manuscript,  in  the  view  and  in- 
tent to  deceive  you,  and  others,  into  the  belief 
that  it  was  what  it  really  was  not  ? 

Vou  will,  my  dear  sir,  much   add   to   the 
obligations  under  which  I  already  am  to  your 
kind  courtesy,  if  you  will  reply  to  the  above. 
I  am,  faithfully,  yours, 

Henry  M.  Dexter. 
Rev.  Mr.  Stutterd. 


made  in  Epworth,  East  and  West  Butterwick, 
in  Ashby,  Winterton  and  Hasey  and  other 
places,  to  recover  the  lost  portions  of  the 
record.  For  the  present,  though,  we  keep 
making  inquiries.  And  to  my  mind  it  seems 
clear  that  they  are  lost  irrecoverably,  but 
some  of  our  friends  think  they  may  turn  up, 
some  day. 

7.  The  greatest  care  was  taken  in  copying 
the  manuscript,  for  then  it  was  falling  fast 
into  a  state  of  decay.  Possibly  there  might 
be  a  name  copied  wrong,  but  I  am  not  aware 
such  is  the  case.  We  are  all  imperfect  in 
this  imperfect  world. 


8.  I  have  no  doubt  %vhatever  on  my  mind 
but  what  was  copied  was  a  genuine  portion  of 
the  original  records.  My  Brethren  here  think 
the  same.  I  cannot  entertain  the  opinion  that 
some  mischievous  or  ill-designing  person 
could  prepare  such  a  Document  for  the  sake 
of  deceiving. 


Dear  Sir,  I  have  replied  with  pleasure  to 
your  enquiries. 

And  believe  me. 

Yours  truly, 

Jabez  Stutterd. 


The  well  informed  student  of  New  England  history  who  has  closely  exam- 
ined the  pretended  extracts  printed  near  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  will, 
long  since,  no  doubt,  have  reached  the  conclusion  that,  if  left  to  stand  solely 
on  their  own  probability  —  as  Mr.  Stutterd's  letter  above  clearly  shows  they 
must  be  —  they  cannot  possibly  be  assigned  to  a  date  earlier  than  1856  —  while 
probably  written  some  years  later.  The  evidence  of  this  I  will  now  produce, 
by  asking  the  reader  to  examine  with  minutest  care  the  passages  which  I  now 
place  side  by  side. 

Things  have   come   to   fuch    a    paffe  .  .  .  Seeing  them  felves  thus  molefted,  and  that 

...  it    has  been  refolved  .  .  .  that   for   the       ther  was  no  hope  of  their  continuance  iher, 
fake   of  peace  we  fliall   leaue  this  our  dear       by  a  joynte  confente  they  refolued  to  goe  into 


[R4] 

native  countrye  &  retire  to  Holland,  whcr,  we  ye  Low-Countries,  whcr  they  heard  was  free- 

heare,  there  is  freedome  of  religion  for  all  men.       dome  of  Religion  for  all  men 

Wee  fliall  haue  to  learne  a  ncwe  language,  and  they  muft  learne  a  new  language,  and  get  their 

get  our  liuings  we  know  not  how.      It  is  a  linings  they  knew  not  how ;  it  being  a  dear 

dear  place  &  fubject  to  ye  miffcries  of  warre:  place  &  fubjecte   to  ye  mifferies  of  warr,  it 

is  thought  by  many  of  ye  brethren,  an  adven-  was  by  many  thought   an   adventure  almoft 

ture  almoft  defperate,  a  cafe  intolerable,  &  a  defperate,   a   cafe   intolerable    &    a    mifferie 

miffcrie  worfe  then  death.     Efpetially  feeing  worfe  then  death.    Efpetially  feeing  they  were 

our  brethren  are  not  accjuainted  with   trads  not  acquainted  with  trads  nor  trafifique  (by 

nor  traffique  (by  which  Hollanders  fubfifle)  but  which  yt  countrie  doth  fubfifte)  but  had  only 

wee  are  ufed  to  plain  countrie  life  and  farm-  been  ufed  to  a  plaine  countrie  life  &  ye  inno- 

ing.  cente  trade  of  hufbandrey 

Wee   have   refolued  to   pray  vnceafinglie  :  Though  they  could  not  flay,  yet  were  yy  not 

our  chiefe  difficultie  is  wee  cannot  (lay,  yet  fuffered  to  goe,  but  ye  ports  &  hauens  were 

wee  are  not  fuffered  to  goe ;  for  ye  Ports  &  fliut  againft  them,  fo  as  they  were  faine  to 

Hauens  are  fhut  againft  us,  fo  wee  muft  looke  feeke  fecrete  means  of  conveance,  &  to  bribe 

for  fecrete  meanes  of  conveyance,  fee  ye  fail-  &  fee  ye  mariners,  &  giue  exterordinarie  rates 

ers,  &  pay  high  rates  for  our  paffage.  for  their  paffages. 

Any  scholar  familiar  with  such  matters  will  see,  and  will  say,  at  once,  that 
the  person  who  wrote  one  of  the  above  statements  must  have  had  the  other  not 
merely  in  memory,  but  actually  under  his  eye,  while  writing.  But  that  in  the 
second  column  was  written  by  William  Bradford  in  the  year  1630^'  in  the  little 
settlement  of  New  Plymouth  on  this  side  of  the  sea  ;  remained  in  manuscript 
—  a  part  of  the  time  in  the  custody,  of  Thomas  Prince  in  the  steeple  of  the 
Old  South  Church — until  it  was  purloined,  carried  to  England  and  in  some 
inexplicable  way  deposited  in  the  Fulham  library ;  whence  it  was  first  printed 
in  1856  by  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  and  where  (it  is  charitable  to 
suppose  through  the  Bishop  of  London's  ignorance  that  he  is  the  keeper  of 
stolen  goods)  it  still  remains.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  Bradford  did  not  copy 
from  the  Crowle  "  records  ;  "  therefore  the  fabricator  of  those  "  records  "  which 
are  printed  in  the  first  column  copied  from  Bradford.  And,  as  the  forger  could 
never  have  seen  the  manuscript,  he  copied  from  the  printed  version.  He  could 
not,  therefore,  have  written  earlier  than  1856,  and  as  it  would  naturally  take 
some  lime  for  such  a  volume  to  work  its  way  up  to  the  North  of  England,  he 
probably  manufactured  these  "records"  not  very  long  before  they  were  "dis- 
covered" in  1S66  ;  having  been  by  him  placed  in  the  "old  oaken  chest" 
judiciously  and  conveniently  to  that  end. 

Following  this  clew  we  strike  at  once  upon  further  probable  revelations. 
There  can  hardly  be  reasonable  doubt  that  the  whole  story  of  the  thwarted 
Crowle  and  Epworth  endeavor  to  flee  to  Holland  by  way  of  Boston  in  1603, 

8"  See  Bradford's  own  statement,  Hist.  Plynt.  Plant.    |    etc.  6.     For  the  extracts  see  pp.  lo,  ii  and  12. 


[85] 


was  su--ested  by  Bradford's  account  of  the  like  attempt  of  the  Scrooby  men 
in  iGosT'^  nor  that  it  was,  in  the  main,  as  to  its  language,  largely  suggested 
therefrom.     For  example,  mark  the  following  : 


The  Craii'le  Forgery.     (1603.) 

A  fea-captaine  who  agreed  to  take  us  from 
Bofton  in  this  county  to  Amfterdam  .  .  .  Wee 
arrived  before  ye  captaine,  &  had  a  wearie  time 
waiting  .  .  .  The  veffel  appeared  at  night  .  .  . 
The  (hip  was  horded  by  ferchers  &  other 
officers,  with  whom  our  Captaine  was  in 
league.  In  ye  deade  of  ye  night  wee  were 
turned  out  into  open  boats,  &  fcarched  &  ran- 
faked  by  ye  officials  — women  as  wel  as  men. 
When  they  had  taken  all  our  money,  bookes 
&  goods  from  us,  they  carried  us  before 
ye  mageftrates,  who  ordered  us  off  to  prilbn, 
where^ve  lay  for  a  month  .  .  .  The  monthe 
after  the  greater  number  of  us  72.  were  re- 
leafed  ;  but  Mr.  Brewftcr  cS:  feaven  others  were 
detained  &  conveyed  to  Lincoln  goale. 


Bradford's  History.     (160S.) 

At  Bofton  in  Lincolin-fliire  .  .  .  made  agree- 
ment with  the  maistcr,  etc.  .  .  .  After  long 
waiting  ...  he  came  at  length  &  tookc  them 
in,  in  ye  night.    But  when  he  had  them  &  their 
goods  abord.  he  betrayed  them,  haveing  before 
hand  complotted   with  ye  ferchers  &   other 
officers  fo  to  doe ;  who  tooke  them,  and  put 
them  into  open  boats,  &  ther  rifled  &  ran- 
faked  them,  fearching  them  to  their  fliirts  for 
money,  yea  even  ye  women  furder  then  be- 
came m'odeftie  .  .  .  Stripte  of  their  money, 
books  and  much  other  goods,  they  were  pre- 
fentcd   to  ye  mageftrates  .  .  .  and    fo    they 
were   coiiiiled  to  ward  .  .  .  After  a  months 
imprifonment,  ye  greatest  parte  were  difmifte 
&  fent  to  ye  places  from  whence  they  came, 
but    7.    of  ye  principall    [foot-note,    "Elder 
Brewfler  was  one  of  thefe "]  were  ftill  kept 
in  prifon,  and  bound  over  to  ye  Affifes. 

We  may  now,  perhaps,  see  our  way  to  account  for  the  nine  men  remaining. 
Of  these  Helwise  was  a  natural  suggestion  ;  as  he  was  always  a  true  yokefello.v 
of  Murton,  and  the  change  of  his  Christian  name  from  Thomas  to  Henry  was 
either  one  more  blunder,  or  a  precautionary  measure  agamst  over-exactness 
Robert  Carver  appears  to  have  been  prompted  in  the  same  way,  as  brother  of 
Tohn      Edward  Fuller,  John  Oldham,  Thomas  Tinker  and  John  Turner  were 
taken  bodilv  from  the  lists  of  the  passengers  of  the  Mayflower,  and  the  Anne 
and  Little  James."     John  [James]  Rayner  appears  to  have  been  one  of  Rob- 
inson's men,  and  probably  one  of  Brewster's  printers.-     John  Rowe  and  Eh 
Kelsev  remain.     But  there  was  a  John  Rowe  -  son  of  John  -  who  was  a  well- 
known  man  in  those  days;^'  and  Taylor '^  says  that  in  1661  there  was  an  Ana- 
baptist named  John  Kelsay  in  Lincolnshire,  from  whom-givtng  him  another 
Bible  Christian  name -this  laboring  romancer  could  complete  the  roll  of  his 
dramatis  pcrsoncz. 


*f.  ihiti.  p.  12. 

8' fir-rt^<jrrf,  pp.  449i  453,  4S«!    J^^"".?'.  352- 

M"I1    ful    imprimeur  probablement    avec  William 


Drewster,"  etc.  MS.  of  M.  U  Baron  W.  J.  C   Ram- 
melinftn  Elsevier. 
80  Palmer's  Ctiiamy,  i :  iSo.         ««  Gen.  Bap.  i :  J93- 


[86] 


This  inquiry  may  here  be  concluded.  Perliaps  it  ouglit  to  be  concluded 
with  an  apology  for  having  occupied  so  much  space  in  the  examination  of  such 
unmitigated  rubbish.  A  more  despicably  fraudulent  endeavor  to  pollute  the 
sources  of  history,  than  these  alleged  ancient  Crowle  Church  records,  surely 
does  not  stain  the  annals  of  English  literature.  Were  it  not  that  the  ill  effects 
of  such  deception  sadden  all  aspects  of  such  a  case,  this  would  be  positively 
ludicrous  for  the  stupendousness  of  its  stupidity ;  for  the  absurdities  growing 
out  of  its  inacquaintance  with  so  simple  a  fact  of  the  past  as  the  difference 
between  Old  Style  and  New ;  for  its  never-mending  failure  to  hit  any  nail  upon 
the  head.  If  the  man  had  thrown  a  font  of  types  into  the  air,  they  could  not 
have  fallen  down  into  feebler  fables.  The  doctrine  of  the  calculation  of 
chances,  if  he  had  left  it  unmeddled  with,  must  surely  have  somewhere  yielded 
him  at  least  one  little  single  solitary  fact  amid  his  howling  wilderness  of  lies. 

As  it  is,  one  may  write  the  epitaph  of  these  "  records  "  fitly  in  "  the  wordes 
of  the  Preacher,  the  fonne  of  Dauid  king  in  Jerufalem  "  —  injecting  the  re- 
iterated noun  thereof  with  the  fulness  of  that  classic  sense  of  mendacity,  in 
which  Cicero  in  his  Tusculan  Questions  employed  it: 

Uanita.if  Uanitatum :  Clanitasf  Ctanitntum : 
Ct  omnia  Oanita.!^. 


Collcction.iS  toltjarti  a  ^iftliogrnpljp  of  tl)c  jpir^t  tluo  fenera- 
tions of  t^c  baptist  Controbcrap  in  ornglantJ* 


[The  only  explanation  which  seems  to  be  needed  here  is  that,  in  arranging  books  by  their  dates,  in  every 
case  where  possible  I  have  followed  Thomason's  endorsement  on  the  title-pages;  printing,  when  they  have 
been  indicated  by  him,  the  month  and  day,  in  fine  type  under  the  year.  In  doing  thus  I  have  sometimes  been 
compelled  to  disregard  the  year  as  set  forth  on  the  title-page.  E.  g:  No.  S  bears  the  printed  date  of  1641,  but,  as 
I  have  shown  [note  51,  p.  48  ante],  it  could  not  have  been  published  before  May,  1642.  As  my  object  herein  has 
simply  been  to  direct  to  the  means  of  knowledge  the  attention  of  those  who  may  doubt  my  statements,  or  who 
desire  further  to  pursue  lines  of  thought  by  them  suggested,  I  have  generally  given  only  so  much  of  a  title  as 
may  accurately  identify  a  book,  and  named  some  one  library  where  it  may  be  consulted.  In  those  cases  where  I 
have  not  found  a  volume,  I  have  sometimes  indicated  the  source  of  my  impression  that  such  a  book  had  existence. 
The  place  of  publication  is  London,  unless  otherwise  stated.] 


161S.    A  Plain  and  Well-grounded  Treatise  concerning  Baptisme.     [translated  from  the  Dutch.]     [Crasiy,  i 

i:  iiS.] 

1623.  [I.  P.]  [reston.]  —  Anabaptismes  Mysterie  of  Iniquity  Unmasked,  etc.     16°,  pp.  xxx,  68.      [contains  2 

Anabaptist  letter  giving  grounds  of  separation  from  the  Chh.  of  Eng.  rep.  by  Crosby,  i:  133-139.] 
13.  M.  [4323.  a.] 

1624.  DoDD  &  Cleaver. —  The  Patrimony  of  Christian  Children,  etc.     4°.     \Crosby,  \:  141.]  3 

1641.    A  Discovery  of  29.  Sects  here  in  London,  all  of  which  except  the  first,  are  most  Divelish  and  Dam-  4 

nable,  etc.     4°,  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  16S.  (7.)] 

1641.  The  Book  of  Cornmon  Prayer  now  used  in  the  Church  of  England,  vindicated  from  the  Aspersions  5 

of  all  Schismatiques,  Anabaptists,  Brownists  and  Separatists ;  Together  with  a  discovery  of  a  sort 
of  people  called  Rebapiists,  lately  found  out  in  Hackney  Marsh  neere  London,  etc.     4°,  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [3475-  aaa.] 

1642.  [P.  B.]  [arbon  ]  —  A  Discourse  tending  to  prove  the  Baptisme  in,  or  under  the  defection  of  Anti-         6 
[Apr.]        Christ  to  be  the  Ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  also  That  the  Baptisme  of  Infants  or  Children,  is  war- 
rantable and  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God,  etc.     4°,  pp.  viii,  32. 

B.  M.  [E.  13S.  (23.)] 

[1642.]  T.  KiLCOP. — A  Short  Treatise  of  Baptisme.    Wherein  is  declared  that  only  Christs  disciples  or  beleev-         7 
rxaj]        ers  are  to  be  baptized,  etc.     [n.  pi. J     i(P,  pp.  iii,  13. 
B.M.[E.  11.3.(1.)] 

[1642.]  E.  Barber. — A  Small  Treatise  of  Baptisme,  or  Dipping;  wherein  is  cleerly  shewed,  that  the  Lord  8 

[Mtj]         Christ  ordained  Dipping  for  those  only  that  professe  repentance  and  faith :  (i)  proved  by  Script- 
ures; (2)  by  Arguments;  (3)  a  Parallel  betwixt  Circumcision  and  Dipping;  (4)  an  Answere  to  some 
objections  by  P.  B[arbon]  [i.e.  those  raised  in  no.  6].     4^,  pp.  viii,  30. 
13.  M.  [E.  143.  (17-)] 

1642.     [A.  R.]  —  A  Treatise  of  the  Vanity  of  Childishe  Baptism;  wherein  the  deficiency  of  the  Baptisme  of         9 
[Juu]        the  Church  of  England  is  considered  in  five  particulars  thereof ;  and  wherin  also  is  proved  that 
Baptizinf^  is  Dipping  and  Dipping  Baptizing.     4°,  pp.  vi,  32. 
B.  M.  Lis2.  (4.)] 

1642.     [A.  R.]  —  The   Second  Part  of  the  Vaniiy  &  Childishnes  of  Infants  Baptisme  [no.  9]  wherein  The        10 
[4  Jnijj      grounds  from  Severall  Scriptures  usually  brought  for  to  justifie  the  same,  are  urged  and  answered. 

As  also  the  nature  of  the  divers  Covenants  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  briefly  opened  and 

applied.     4°,  pp.  ii,  30. 
B.  M.  tE.  59-  (S)] 


(87) 


[SS] 


1642.     T.  Wynell. — The  Covenants  Plea  for  Infants:  or,  The  Covenant  of  Free  Grace  pleadin<j  the  Divine        11 
[iSipu]     Kight  of  Christian  infants  unto  the  Scale  of  holy  Haplisme.     Against  the  rusiicke  Sophistry,  and 
wicked  Cavillationsof  sacrilegious  Anabaptists,  etc.     Oxford,  4°,  pp.  xii,  124. 
B.  M.  [E.  1.5.(17)] 

1642.     A  Short  History  of  the  Anabaptists  of  High  and  Low  Germany,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  56.  12 

B.  M.  [E.  MS.  (5.)] 

1642.    [R.  B.]  —  An  Answer  to  the  Treatise  of  P.  B.  [no.  6]  on  Baptisme,  etc.     4°.  13 

1642.    A  Warning  for  England,  especially  for  London,  in  the  famous  history  of  the  frantic  Anabaptists,        14 
etc.     4''. 

Bodleian,  [Wood.  647.  2.] 

1642.     Reasons  humblv  offered  in  justification  of  the  action  of  letting  a  Room  in  London-house  unto  certain        15 
peaceable  Christians  called  Anabaptists.     4°. 
Bodleian,  [4^,  P.  i.  Art.  BS.] 

1642.  J.  Taylor.  —  A  Cluster  of  Coxcombes;    or  a   Cinquepace  of   five  sorts  of  Knaves  and  Fooles:        x6 

namely,  the  Donatists,  Publicans,  Disciplinarians,  Anabaptists,  and  Brownists,  etc.     [n.  pi.]    4*^, 
pp.8. 

B.  M.  [E.  154.(49-)] 

1643.  The  Roundheads  Catechisme:  or,  the  Newter  catechizing  the  Anabaptists,  Puritans,  Separatists,        17 
[8  Apr.]      and  weli-alfected  under  the  name  of  Roundheads,  with  their  joyut  Answer  to  the  same.     32°, 

pp.  32- 

H.  M.  [E.  1205.  (1.)] 

1643.  [P.  B.1[.\rbon1  —  A  Replv  to  the  Frivolous  and  impertinent  Answer  of  R.  B.  [no.  13]  to  the  18 
[14  Apr.]  Discourse  of  P.  B.  [no.  6]  in  which  Discourse  is  shewed,' that  the  Baptisme  in  the  Defection  of 
Antichrist,  is  the  ordinance  of  God,  notwiihstanding  the  corruptions  that  attend  the  same,  and  that 
the  Baptisme  of  Infants  is  lawful;  both  of  which  are  vindicated  from  the  exceptions  of  R.  B.  and 
further  cleared  by  the  same  author  [i.  e.  V.  IJ.].  There  is  also  a  reply  in  way  of  Answer  to  some 
exceptions  of  E.  B.  [no.  8]  against  the  same.  4°,  pp.  vi,  64. 
B.  M.  [E.  96.  (2o.)J 

1643.     An  Anabaptists  Sermon.     Preached  at  the  Rebaptizing  of  a  Brother,  at  the  new  or  holy  Jordan,  as        ig 
[;i9Apr.3     they  call  it,  neare  Bow  or  Hackney  River,  etc.     4°,  pp.  4. 
B.  M.  [E.  97.  (.3.)] 

1643.     [S   C]  —  A  Christian  Plea  for  Christians  Baptisme:    Raised  from  the  grave  of  Apostasie :  or,  A        20 
[35  Ma/]     Short  Treatise,  being  a  reproof  of  some  thinijs  written  by  A.  R.  in  his  Treatise  entituled  'flu  Vati- 
itie  [no.  9],  etc.     4",  pp.  viii,  30. 
B.  M.  [E.  104.  (2.)J 

1643.    The  Clergyes  Bill  of  Complaint;  or  submissive  suit  of  one  in  the  behalf  of  all  the  Orthodox  and        21 
great  sorrow-suffering  Church-inen   throughout  England ;  exhibited  to  the  Houses  of  Parliament 
against  Hrowiiisis,  Anabaptists,  and  other  Schismaticks.     Oxford,  4^. 
Bodleian,  [Pamph.  5S.] 

1643.     [S.  C] —  A  Christian  Plea  for  Infants  Baptisme,  or  a  Confutation  of  some  things  written  by  A.  R.        22 
[8  Feb.]      in  his  Treatise  entituled  7'A^  >S"^c<?/i<//'«r/ [no.  loj  etc.     4^,  pp.  ii,  166. 
B.  M.  [E.  32.  (2.)J 

1643.  T.  Blake.  —The  Birth-Priviledge  or  Covenant-Holinesse  of  Beleevers  and  their  Issue  in  the  time        23 
[18 Mar.]    of  the  Gospel:   With  the  right  of  Infants  to  Baptism.     4°,  pp.  vi,  34. 

B.  M.  [E.  37   (29)] 

1644.  The  Anabaptists  Groundwork  for  Reformation :    or.   New  Planting  of   Churches,  that   no  man,        24 
[81  May]     woman  nor  child,  may  be  baptized,  but  such  as  have  justifying  Faith,  and  doe  make  profession 

thereof,  before,  to  the  Baptizer,  Found  false,  with  all  things  depending  thereon,  as  being  contrary 
to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  the  Examples  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  34. 
B.  M.  [L\  50.  (2.)] 

1644.     H.  AiNSwoRTH.  —  A  Seasonable  Discourse,  or,  a  Censure  upon  a  Dialogue  of  the  Anabaptists,  etc.        25 
[4  Juno]     4°,  pp.  iv,  74.     [first  printed  (probably)  in  1623. 1 
B.  M.  [E.  50.  (8.)] 

1644.    T.  Bakewell.  — A  Confutation  of  the  Anabaptists,  and  all  others  who  affect  not  civill  government;        26 
SlJune]     proving  the  Lawfulnesse  of  it  .  .  .  Also  Arguments  against  the  Anabaptists,  proving  that  Infants 
borne  of  Christian  Parents  ought  to  be  baptized,  etc.     4^,  [n.  p.]  pp.  102. 
B.  M.  [E.  5..  (20.)] 

1644.    T.  NoTT. — The  Nut-Cracker  crackt  by  the  Nutt  .  .  .  being  the  vindication  of  honest  men  from        27 
[3  Aug.]     the  scandalous  aspersions  of  T.  B.  as  you  may  see  in  his  learned  book  called  the  Confutation  [no. 
26J,  etc      large  4",  [n.  p.]  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  254.  (ii.)J 

1644.     S.  Marshall. — A  Sermon  of  the  Baptizing  of  Infants;  preached  in  the  Abbey-Church  at  West-        28 
[27  Aug.]     minster.     4^,  pp.  iv,  62. 

B.  M.  [K.  P.  gold  no.  171.  (21.)] 


[89] 


1644.     Infants  Baptizing  Proved  Lawfull  by  the  Scriptures :  Objections  against  it  resolved  and  removed,        ag 
nssepio    etc.     4°,  pp.  16. 

B.  M.  [E.  8.  (31.)] 

1644.     W.    Cooke.  — A  learned  and  Full  Answer  to  a  Treatise  intituled  The  Vanity  fnos.  9  &  lo],   etc.        30 
[18  Sept.]    Also  the  question  concerning  the  necessitie  of   Dipping  in  Baptisme  is  fully  discussed,  etc.    4°, 
pp.  viii,  1 12. 

B.  M.  [E.  9.  (2.)] 

1644.     John  the  Baptist,  Forerunner  of  Christ  lesvs;  or  A  necessity  for  Liberty  of  Conscience,  as  the  only        31 
[23  Sept.]  meane.s  under  heaven  to  strengthen  Children  weake  in  faith,  to  convince  Hereticks  misled  in  faith, 
etc.     4^,  pp.  vi>i,  :oS. 
B.  M.  [E.  9.  (.3.)] 

1644.     F.  CoRNWELL. — The  Vindication  of  the  Royall  Commission  of  King  Jesus,  Matt,  xxviii:   iS-20,        32 
[S7  Bept.]  compared  with  Mark,  xvi :  15,  16,  against  the  Antichristian  Faction  of  Pope  Innocensius  the  third, 

that  enacted  by  a  decree  that  the  Baptisme  of  the  Infants  of  Beleivers  should  succeed  Circum- 

[cijsion.     4^,  pp.  vi,  18. 
B.  M.  [E.  10.(15.)] 

1644.     The  Summe  of  a  Conference  at  Terling  in  Essex,  Jan.  11,  1643  ...  on  Infants  Baptisme,  etc.    4°,        33 
rr  Oct.]      pp.  viii,  36. 

B.  M.  [E.  12.  (2.)] 

1644.     A  Declaration  against  Anabaptists:  to  stop  the  Persecution  fo  their  errours,  falsely  pretended  to  be        34 
[9  Oct.]      a  Vindication  [no.  32],  etc.     4^,  pp.  ii,  6. 
B.  M.  [E.  12.  (9.)] 

1644.    The  Confession  of  Faith  of  those  Churches  which  are  commonly  (though  falsely)  called  Anabaptists,        35 
[18  Oct.]    etc.    4^,  pp.  24. 

B.  M.  IE.  12.  (24.)] 

1644.  To  .Sions  Virgins:  Or,  A  Short  Forme  of  Catechisme  of  the  Doctrine  of  Baptisme,  in  use  in  these  36 
[4 Not.]  Times  that  are  so  full  of  Questions.  By  an  Ancient  Member,  of  that  long  agoe  gathered  Congre- 
gation, whereof  Mr.  Henry  Jacob  was  an  Instrument  of  gathering  it,  and  the  Pastour  worthy  of 
double  honour,  Mr.  jfohn  Lathrofipe  succeeding  him,  now  pastor  in  Ne7v-Bngland:  and  the 
beloved  Congregation,  through  Gods  mercies  sees  her  Teachers,  waiting  when  God  shall  give  more 
Liberty  and  Pastours  according  to  his  own  heart,  praying  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  to  thrust  forth 
Labourers  into  his  harvest.  4  ,  pp.  iv,  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  17.  (19.)] 

1644.     T.  Bakewell.  — The  Antinomians  Christ  Confounded,  and  the  Lords  Christ  exalted,  [pp.  56-68.        37 
[ISSoT.]    "The  grounds  of  true  Religion  laid  open  and  applied"]  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  68. 
B.  M.  [E.  17.  (16.)] 

1644.    The  New  Distemper,  written  by  the  Author  of  the  Loyall  Convert,  etc.     Oxford,  4°,  pp.  ii,  26.  38 

[20  Nor.]         B.  M.  [E.  17.  (20.)] 

1644.     [T.  B.,  B.  D.]  — A  Moderate  answer  to  these  two  Questions:   (i)  whether  ther  be  sufficient  ground        39 
[38 Not.]     in    Scripture  to   warrant  ...  a   Christian   to  present  his  infant  to  the  Sacrament  of    Baptism; 
(2)  whether  it  be  not  sinfull  ...  to  receiv  the  Sacrament  in  a  mixt  assembly.    4°,  pp.  ii,  32. 
B.  M.  (E.  19.  (6.)] 

1644.     C.  Blackwood. — The  Storming  of  Antichrist  in  his  strongest  Garrisons,  of  compulsion  of  Con-        40 
[S8Dm.]    science,  and  Infants  Baptisme,  etc.    4°,  pp.  iv,  62,  68, 
B.  M.  [E.  22.  (15.)] 

[1644.]  J.  Spilsburv. — A  Treatise  concerning  the  lawful  subjects  of  Baptism,  etc.    4°.     [probably  ist  ed.        41 
of  no.  149.] 

1644.    T.Lamb. — The  Un-Lawfulnesse  of  Infants  Baptisme,  etc    4°.  42 

1644.     The  Compassionate  Samaritane.      Vnbinding  the  Conscience,  and  powring  oyle  into  the  wounds        43 
which  have  beene  made  upon  the  Separation,  etc.    [pp.  60-71  the  Anabaptists  in  particular.]    24°, 
pp.  84. 
B.  M.  [E.  1202.(1.)] 

1644.    The  Fountaine  of  Free  Grace  opened  .  .  .  wherein  they  [/.  e.  the  Congregation  of  Christ  in  London        44 
['.'iJ»n.]    falsly  called  Anabaptists]  vindicate  themselves  from  the  scandalous  aspersions  of  holding  Free- 
will, and  denying  a  free  Election  by  grace.     12°,  pp.  iv,  24. 
B.  M.  IE.  ii'8i.(3.)] 

1644.     I.  Knutton.  —  Seven  Qvestions  abovt  the  Controversie  betweene  the  Chvrch  of  Engkind,  and  the        45 
[ziJu.j     Separatists  and  Anabaptists,  breifely  discussed,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  36. 
B.  M.  [E.  25.  (20.)] 

1^44.     D.  Fbatlev  — The  Dippers  Dipt,  or  the  Anabaptists  dvck'd  and  plvng'd  over  Head  and  Eares  at  a        46 
[7  Fob.]      Disputation  in  Southwark,  etc     4°,  pp.  xviii,  22S. 
B.  M.  [E.  268.  (11.)] 


[9o] 


1644.     [P.  B.]  —  A  Defence  of  the  Lavvfulnesse  of  Baptizing  Infants  ...  in  way  of  answer  to  someihinj;        47 
psFeb.]    written  by  J.  Spilsbeiie  [no.  41],  etc.     4'',  pp.  vi,  64. 
B.  M.  [E.  270.  (.2.)] 

1644.  S.  RiCHARDSo.v,  —  Soine  brief  Considerations  on  Dr.  Featley,  his  book  intituled  The  Dipper  Difit,         48 
[25 Feb.]     [no.  46J,  wherein  in  some  measure  is  discovered  his  many  great  and  false  accusations  of  divers  per- 
sons commonly  called  Anabaptists,  etc.     4^,  pp.  ii,  iS. 

B.  M.  [E.  270.  (22.)] 

1645.  H.  Denne. — Antichrist  Vnmasked  in  two  Treatises.     The  first,  An  Answer  unto  two  Pa;dobaptists        49 
[lApr.]      .  .  .  the  Arguments  for  Childrens  Baptisme  opened,  and  answered.     The  Second,  the  Man  of 

Sinne  discovered  in  Doctrine,  etc.     4^,  pp.  iv,  52. 
Bodleian,  [G.  Pamph.  1042.  (4.)] 

1645.     R.  Ram.  —  Paedobaptisme:  or,  the  Baptizing  of  Infants  Justified,  by  the  judgment  and  practice  of        50 
pApr.]      ancient  and  modern  Divines,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  28. 
B.  M.  [E.  276.  (i2.)J 

1645.     [J.  G.]fRAUNT.]  —  Truth's  Victorie  acainst  Heresie;  all  sorts  comprehended  under  those  ten  men-        51 
[9Apr.]j     tioned,  viz. :  (i)  Papists;  (2)  Familists;  (3)  Arrians;   (4)  Arminians;  (5)  Anabaptists;  (6)  Sepa- 
ratists; (7)  Antinomists;  (S)  Monarchists;  (9)  Millenarists;  (10)  Independents,  etc.   4^,  pp.  iv,  74. 
B.  M.  [E.  277.  (7.)J 

1645.     [R.  BvFiBLD.]^Temple-defilers  defiled,  wherein  a  true  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  described,   the        52 
[22Apr.]     evils  and  pernicious  errours,  especially  apperlaining  to  Scliisme,  Anabaptisme  and  Libertinisrae 
that  infest  our  Church  are  discovered,  etc.     4°,  pp.  viii,  40. 
B.  M.  [E.  278.  (20.)] 

1645.     T.  Blake.  —  Infants  baptisme  freed  from  Anti-christianisme.    A  full  repulse  to  Mr.  C.  B.  in  his        53 
[29Apr.]     assault,  Tfie  Storming  [no.  40],  etc.     4°,  pp.  viii,  130. 
B.  M.  [E.  279.  (lo.)J 

1645.     E.  Pagitt.  —  Heresiography :  or,  a  description  of  the  Hereticks  and  Sectaries  of  these  latter  times,        54 
[8M»j]      etc.    4°,  pp.  x.\iv,  132. 
B.  M.  [E.  282.  (5.)J 

1645.     G.  Phillips.  —  A  Reply  to  a  Confutation  of  some  Grounds  for  Infant  Baptism  ;  as  also  concerning        55 
[lOJune'l     the  form  of  a  Church,  put  forth  against  me  by  one  T.  Lamb  [no.  42  ?1,  etc.     4^,  up.  xvi,  11:4. 
B.  M.  [E.  287.  (4.)J 

1645.     \V.  KiFFiN.  — A  Briefe  Remonstrance  of  the  Reasons  and  Grounds  of  Anabaptists  for  their  Sepa-        56 
pojulj]     ration,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  16. 
B.  M.  [E.  293.  (16.)] 

1645.     J.  RiCRAFT.  —  A  Looking  Glasse  for  the  Anabaptists  and  the  rest  of  the  Separatists:  Wherein  they        57 
[4  Sept.]     may  clearly  behold  a  brief  Confutation  of  a  certain  un-licensed  Scandalous  Pamphlet  Intituled  the 
Remotistratice  [no.  56J,  etc.     4"',  pp.  iv,  26. 
B.  M.  [E.  299.  (9.)] 

1645.     J.  Brinsley. — The  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  Pasdo-baptisme  asserted  and  vindicated.     4°,  pp.  vi,        58 
posepi.]    100,  86. 

B.  M.  [E.  300.  (14.)] 

1645.    The  An.ibaptists  Catechisme:  with  all  their  Practises,  Meetings  and  Exercises,  etc.     16°,  pp.  ii,  14.  sn 

QlSept.]        B.  M.  [E.  1185.  (8.)]  .  1-1       .    t  jj 

1645.     [Capt.  Hobson.]  —  The  Fallacy  of  Infants  Baptisme  Discovered,  or  Five  Arguments,  to  prove  that        Oo 
[10  Deo.]     Infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  etc.     4°,  pp.  vi,  16. 
B.  M.  [E.  311.  (r8.)J 

1645.     J.  ToMBES. — Two  Treatises  and  an  Appendix  to  them  concerning  Infant-Baptisme :  (i)  an  Exer-        61 
[10 Deo.]     citation  presented  to  llie  Chairman  of  a  Committee  of  the  Assembly;  (2)  an  Examen  of  Mr.  Mar- 
shalls  .Sermon  [no.  28],  etc.     4'-",  pp.  x,  34,  176,  x. 
B.  M.  [E.3.2.  (i.)] 

1645.     R.  Face,  Jr. —  The  Lawfulnesse  of  Infante-Baptisme,  or.  An  Answer  to  Thomas  Lamb  his  eight        62 
[10 Deo.]     arguments  entituled  The  Un-laiv/ulttesse  \no.  42 1,  etc.     16^,  up.  ii,  16. 
B.  M.  [E.  1189.(10)] 

1645.    A  Declaration  concerning  the  Publike  Dispute  which  should  have  been  in  the  Publike  meeting-        63 
[30  Deo.]     house  of  Alderman-bury,  the  3d  of  this  inst.  moneth  of  December,  concerning  Infanls-Baptisme, 
etc.  by  B.  Cox,  H.  Knollys,  W.  Kiffin,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  20. 
B.  M.  IE.313.  (22.)J 

1645.     J.    Mabbatt.  —  A  Briefe  or  Generrill  Reply  unto  Mr.  Knuttons  Answers  unto  the  VI L  Questions        64 
[no.  45]  and  the  Controversie  between  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Separatist  and  Anabaptist, 
briefly  discussed,  etc.     [n.  pi.]    4'^,  pp.  40. 
[I  have  it.] 


[91] 


1645.    J.  Waite. — The  Way  to  Heaven  by  Water,  concomitnlerl  by  the   sweet-breathing  gales  of  the        O5 
Spirit.     V'ork,  4°. 

liodleian,  [NIason.  AA.  473.] 

1645.     R.  Garner.  —  A  Treatise  of  Captisme ;  wherein  is  clearly  proved  the  lawf ulnesse  of  Beleevers  Bap-        66 
piJin.]      tisme,  etc      4°,  pp.  iv,  34. 
B.  M.  [E.  314.  (i6.)J 

1645.     C.  Blackwood.  —  Apostolical!  Baptisme;  or  a  Sober  Rejoinder  to  a  Treatise  written  by  Mr.  T.        67 
[13J»n.]     Blake,  intituled  Infants  Baptistne  freed\xiO.  53],  etc.     4^,  pp.  iv,  83,  iii. 
B.  M.  IE.  3.5.  (.7.)] 

if>45-     [R- J] — Nineteen  Arguments,  proving  Circumcision  no  seal  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  .  .  .  the        68 
[isjin.j     unlawfullnesse  of  Infant  Baptisme,  etc.     4^,  pp.  iv,  20. 
B.  M.  [E.  3iS-('6.)] 

1645.    J.  Saltmarrh. — The  Smoke  in  the  Temple,  etc.    4°,  pp.  xvi,  32,  70.  69 

pojan.]         B.  M.  [E.  316.  (14.)] 

1645.     [T.  E.][akewell.]  —  A  Justification  of  two  points  now  in  controversie  with  the  Anabaptistes,  etc.        70 
pgju.3     4°)  PP-  ii.  30. 

Bodleian,  [C.  13.  16.  Line] 

1645.     R.  Bavi.ie.  —  A  Dissvasive  from  the  Errours  of  the  Time,  etc.    4°,  pp.  xxiv,  252.  71 

p2j»n.]         B.  M.  [E.  317.  (15.)] 

1645.     R.  Williams. — Christenings  make  not  Christians,  or,  a  Briefe  Discourse  concerning  that  name        72 
[25J»B.]     //^rt///^«,  commonly  given  to  the  Indians.     As  also  concerning  that  great  point  of  their  Conver- 
sion, etc.     16°,  pp.  ii,  22. 
B.  M.  [E.  1189.  (S.)] 

1645.    A  Confession  of  Faith  of  .Seven  Congregations,  or  Churches  of  Christ  in  London,  which  are  com-        73 
1.2iiJ»ii.]     monly  (but  uniustly)  called  Anabaptists,  etc.     Second  Impression,  corrected  and  enlarged  [see  no. 
351-     4^,  [n.  p.]  pp.  24. 
B.  M.  [E.  319.  (13.)] 

1645.     H.  Knollys.  —  The  Shining  of  a  Flaming  Fire  in  Zion.     Or,  a  Clear  Answer  unto  13  Exceptions        74 
til  Feb.]     against  the  Grotinds  of  New  Baptism  ;  (so  called)  in  Mr.  Saltmarsh  his  Book  intituled  The  Smoke 
[no.  6q1,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  18. 
B.  M.  [E.  322.  (i6.)] 

1645.     J.  Eachard.  — The  Axe  against  Sin  and  Error,  and  the  Truth  conquering,  etc.    4°,  pp.  xii,  40.  75 

p4Fcb.]         B.  M.  [E.  322.  (26.)] 

1645     T.  Edwards.  —  Ganermna  :  or  a  Catalogue  and  Discovery  of  many  of  the  Errours,  Heresies,  Bias-        76 
[18  Feb.]     phemies  and  pernicious  Practices  of  the  Sectaries  of  this  time,  vented  and  acted  in  England  in 
these  four  last  yeares,  etc.     4°,  pp.  xxiv,  1S4.     [first  part.] 
B.  M.  [E.  323.  (2.)] 

1645.     N.  Homes.  —  A  Vindication  of  Baptizing  Beeleevers  Infants,  in  some  Animadversions  upon  Mr.        77 
raoFob.]     Tombes,  His  Exercitations  about  In/ant  Baptism  [no.  61],  etc.     4°,  pp.  vi,  227,  v. 
B.  M.  [E.  324.  (>.)] 

1645.  J.  Geree.  —  Vindicia  Pcedo-baptismi:  or  a  Vindication  of  Infant  Baptism,  in  a  full  Answer  to  Mr.         7b' 
r4Mu.]      Tombs  his  twelve  arguments  alleged  against  it  [no.  61  ?],  etc.     4°,  pp.  viii,  72. 

B.  M.  [E.325.  (=5-)] 

1646.  S.  Marshall.  —  A  Defence  of  Infant-Baptism :  in  answer  to  two  Treatises  of  Mr.  J.  Tombes  [no.        79 
pApr.]      61],  etc.     4°,  PP  vi,  256,  iv. 

B.  M.  [E.  332.  (5.)] 

1646.     J.  Lev.  —  Light  for  Smoak,  or  a  reply  to  Tlie  Smoke  in  the  Temple  [no.  69],  etc.      4°,  pp.  xxx,        80 
ni  Apt.]     98,  22. 

B.  M.  [E.  333.  (2.)] 
1646.     J.  Spilsbury.  —  Gods  Ordinance,  the  Saints  Priviledge:  discovered  and  proved  in  two  Treatises        8i 
MUaj]      .  .  .  the  second  wherein  the  Saints  right  to  the  use  of  Baptisme  is  proved,  etc.     4°,  pp.  viii,  80. 

B.  M.  [E.  335.  (17  )] 

1646.    T.  Bakewell. — An  Answer,   or  Confutation,  of  divers  Errors  Broached  and  Maintained  by  the        82 
[7Msj]       seven  Churches  of  Anabaptists,  contained  in  their  Confession  [no.  73],  and  other  grosse  opinions 
held  bv  them  against  the  cleare  Light  of  the  Gospel,  etc.     4^,  pp.  iv,  46. 
B.  M.  [E.  336.  (10.)] 

1646.     T.  Edwards. —The  Second  Part  of  Gan^rcena  [see  no.  76],  or  a  fresh  and  further  Discovery  of        83 
[38likj]     the  Errors,  Heresies,  Blasphemies,  and  dangerous  Proceedings  of  the  Sectaries  of  this  time,  etc. 
4°,  PP   xii,  212. 

B.  M.  [E.  338.  (.2.)] 

1646.     W.  Ho';rev.  —An  Answer  to  Mr.  Toinbes  his  sceptical  Examination  [Exercitation]  of  Infant-Bap-        84 
[6 Jaij]      lisme  [no.  6iJ,  etc     4^,  pp.  vi,  72. 
B.  M.  [E.  343-  (3  )J 


[9-'] 


1646.     H.  Lavor.  —  Predestination   handled  and   maintained  against  Papists,   Arminians,  and   Certaine        85 
noJalyJ     Churches  also  of  Anti-pasdobaptists.     12°,  pp.  ii,  34. 

B.  M.  [E.  11S7.  (2.)] 
1646.     Of  Baptisme.    The  heads  and  order  of  such  things  as  are  especially  insisted  on,  you  will  find  in  the        86 
noAag.]     table  of  Chapters.     Rotterdam,  16°,  pp.  viii,  410,  vi. 

B.  M.  [E.  in6.] 

1646.     J.  ToMBBS.  — An  Apology  or  Plea  for  the  Two  Treatises  and  Appendix  concerning  Infant  Baptism        87 
[28  Aug.]     [no.  61],  etc.    4°,  pp.  VI,  158. 
B.  M.  [E.  352-  ('•)] 

1646.    T.  Gataker.  —  Shadowes  without  Substance,  or,  pretended  New  Lights,  etc.    4°,  pp.  ii,  116.  88 

ni  s»pt.]        B.  M.  [E.  366.  (2.)J 

1646.    J.  Cotton.    The  Grovnds  and  Endes  of  the  Baptisme  of  the  Children  of  the  Faithfvll,  etc    4°,        89 
no  Oct.]     pp.  viii,  106. 

B.  M.  [E.  356.  (16.)] 

[1646.]  [R.  H.] — The  True  Guide,  etc.     [a  discourse  on  Baptism.]    [see  no.  91.]    4°.  90 

1646.     [R.  B.]  — A  Briefe  Answer  to  R.  H.  his  Booke,  entitled  The  True  Guide  [no.  90],  etc.   4°,  pp.  ii,  38.         91 
paoot.]        B.  M.  [E.  357.  {2.)] 

[1646.]  [Mr.]  Harrison.  —  Pxdobaptism  Oppugned,  etc.  [in  review  of  no.  78,  as  see  no.  98],  etc.    4°.  52 

1646.     [A.  WvKE.]  —  The  Innocent  in  Prison  Complaining;  or,  a  True  Relation  of  the  Proceedinps  of  the        93 
Committee  of  Ipswich,  the  Committee  at  liiiry  St.  Edmonds,  in  the  County  of  .Suffolk,  .isainst  one 
Andrew  Wyke,  a  witness  of  Jesus  in  the  same  County,  who  was  committed  to  prison,  June  3,  1646, 
etc.     \_Crosby,  i :  235.] 

1646.    W.  Ht;ssEY.  —  A  Ivst  Provocation  of  Master  Tombes,  to  make  good  his  generall  charge  [no.  87?]        94 
n\  Oct.]     against  Mr.  W.  Hussey's  Satisfaction  to  his  Sceptical!  Exercitation  [no.  84],  etc.    4°,  pp.  iv,  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  357-  (6.)J 

1646.     [T.  KiLCOP.]  —  Seekers  Supplyed,  or  Three-and-Forty  Non-Church  Queries  by  Scripture  answered.        95 
[3 Mot.]      Penned  and  Publish't  for  the  vindication  of  Christs  commands,  and  edification  and  confirmation  of 
his  people,  by  T.  K.  Servant  to  Christ  Jesus,  the  King  of  Kings.     4°,  pp.  iv,  12. 
B.  M.  [E.  359-  (4.)] 

[1646.]  [J.  Wilkinson.]  —  The   Sealed  Fountaine  opened  to  the  faithful!,  and  their  Seed.     Or,  a  short        96 
[17  Not.]     Treatise,  shewing  that  some  Infants  are  in  the  state  of  Grace,  and  capable  of  the  Scales,  and 

others  not.     Being  the  chief  point  wherein  the  Separatists  doe  blame  the  Anabaptists.     By  J.  \V. 

Prisoner  at  Colchester  against  John  Morton,  Prisoner  at  London.     32°,  pp.  xii,  16. 
B.  M.  [E.  1205.  (2.)] 

1646.    F.  SpANHEMius.  —  Englands  Warning  by  Germanies  Woe :  or,  An   Historical!   Narration  of  the        97 
[23KoT.]     Originall,  Progresse,  Tenets,  Names,  and  Severall  Sects  of  the  Anabaptists,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  50. 
B.  M.  [E.  362.  (28.)] 

1646.     J.  Geree.  —  Vittdicia  Vindiciaru^n  ;    or,   a  Vindication   of  his  Vindication  0/  In/ant  Baptism        98 
piNoT.]     [no.  78]  from  the  exceptions  of  Mr.   Harrison  in  his  Pcedpbaptisin  Oppuf;7i£d  [no.  92],  etc.  and 
from  the  exceptions  of  Mr.  Tombes  [no.  87],  etc.    4",  pp.  vi,  42. 
B.  M.  [E.  363.  (13.)) 

1646.    T.  Edwards.  —  The  Third  Part  of  Gattgrcena,  etc.     [see  nos.  76  &  83.]    4°,  pp.  xlii,  318.  99 

[iBNoT.J         B.  M.  [E.  368.  (5.)] 

1646.     B.  CoxE.  —  An  Appendix  to  a  Confession  of  Faith,  or  a  more  full  Declaration  of  the  Faitli  and  Judg-      100 
[30 Not.]     ment  of  Baptized  Beleevers.      Occasioned  by  the  inquiry  of  some  wel-aflected  and  godly  persons 

in  the  Country.     Published  for  tlie  cleering  of  truth  and  discovery  of  their  mistake  wlio  liave 

imagined  a  dissent  in  fundamentals  where  there  is  none.    4°,  pp.  12. 
B.  M.  [E.  364.  (i.)] 

1646.     An  Order  of  the  Lords  assembled  in  Parliament,  for  the  punishing  of  Anabaptists  and  Sectaries  that      101 
[22 Deo.]     shall  (listurbe  tlie  ministers  in  their  publike  exercises,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  4. 
B.  M.  [E.  367.  (2.)] 

1646.    R.  Bavi.ie.  —  Anabaptism  the  True  Fovntaine  of  Independency,  Brownisme,  Antinomy,  Farailisme,      102 
[4Ju.]      and  most  of  the  other  Errours,  which  for  the  Time  doe  trouljle  the  Church  of  England  .  .  .  Also 
tlie  Questions  of  Pidobaptisme  and  Dipping  liaudled  from  Scripture.     In  a  second  Part  of  the 
Disswasive  [no.  71],  etc.    4°,  pp.  xxxii,  179,  xiii. 
B.  M.  [E.  369.  (9-)] 
1646.    A  Catalogue  of  the  several!  sects  and  opinions  in  England,  and  other  nations,  with  a  brefe  Rehersall      103 
[IOJm.]     of  their  false  and  dangerous  tenets,     single  sheet  fol.     [refers  to  "Anabaptists."] 
B.  M.  [669.  f.  10.  (m.)] 

1646.     O.  Sedgwick. — The  Natvre  and  Danger  of  heresies;  opened  in  a  sermon  before  the  House  of      104 
[27 Ju.]     Commons  [on  Rev.  xii:  15,  16J,  etc     4*^,  pp.  iv,  44. 
B.  M.  [E.  372.  (i3.)J 


[93] 


1646.    The  New  Letanie,  etc.     Broad  sheet,  folio,     [refers  to  "Anabaptists,"  etc.]  105 

[li»l«r.]         B.  M.  [66g.  f.  10.  (120.)] 

1646.  R.  Whittle. — An  Answer  to  Mr.  F.  Cornwells  Positions  and  Inferences,  concerning  Dipping,      106 
[S4Uar.]     Anabaptisnie,  .Antipxdobaptisme,  Tythes  and  Consecrated  Churches,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  22. 

B.  M.  IE.  516.  (i.)J 

1647.  The  Anabaptists  late  Protestation ;  or,  their  Resolvtion  to  depart  the  City  of  London.     Wherein  is      107 
[3Apr.]      set  forth  the  full  proceedings  of  a  great  number  of  Anabaptists,  at  a  late  Conventicle  neere  Old- 
Street,  etc.     4'-^,  [n.  p.]  pp.  8. 

B.  M.  [E.  3S3.  (n.)j 

1647.     J.  Bastwick. — The  Storming  of  the  Anabaptists  garrisons,  with  a  brief  Discovery  of  the  weak-      108 
C3Juii«J     nesse  of  the  same,  etc.     4'-',  pp.  ii,  50. 
B.  M.  [E.  390.  (23.)] 

1647.     G.  Pai.mer.  —  Sectaries  vnmasked  and  confuted,  by  the  treating  upon  divers  Points  of  doctrine  in      leg 
pjolj]      debate  betwixt  the  Presbyterians  and  Sectarists,  Anabaptists,  Independents  and  Papists,  etc.     4°, 
pp.  viii,  56. 

B.  M.  [E.  396.  (27-)] 

1647.     G.  Palmer. — The  Voice  of  Infants  by  Infants  Defender,  etc.     4°,  pp.  12.  110 

[8  July]  B.  M.  IE.  396.  (28.)] 

1647.     A  Declaration  by  Congregationall  Societies  in  and  about  London;  as  well  of  those  commonly  called      iii 
pjNoT.]     Anabaptists,  as  others,  in  way  of  vindication    of   themselves  touching:    (i)  Liberty;  (2)  Magis- 
tracy; (0  Proprietv ;  (4)  Poiygamie,  etc.     4°,  pp.  14. 
B.  M."[E.  416.  U'o.)] 

[1647.]  A  Looking-Glass  for  Sectaryes ;  or,  True  Newes  from  Newbery,  being  the  relation  of  the  Newbery       112 
Anabapiisies,  whereof  three  were  to  be  carried  into  Heaven,  but  failed  in  their  lourney,  etc. 
4°,  pp.  8. 

B.  M.  [E.  419.  (20.)] 

1647.     n.  Grotius.  —  Baptizatorum  Puerorum  Institutio,  etc.     Londini,  12°.     [/fa//,  s.  n.]  113 

1647.    J.  HoORNBEEK.  —  Disputationes  de  Baptismo  Veterum,  ctc.     Ultraject.  4°.     [Wrt//,  s.  n.]  114 

1647.     A  Testimony  to  the  Truth  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  our  Solemn  League  and  Covenant ;  as  also  against      115 
[ISJu.]     the  Errours,  Heresies  and  Blasphemies  of  these  times,  etc.     [p.  18  discusses  "  Errours  against  the 
Sacrament  of  Haptisme."J    4'-',  pp.  ii,  38. 
B.  M.  [E.  423.  (3)J 

1647.  [W.  Dell.]  —  Baptismon  Didache:  or.  The  Doctrine  of  Baptismes,  Reduced  from  its  Ancient  and      116 
noFeb.j     Moderne  Corruptions:  and  restored  to  its  Primitive  Soundnesse  and  Integrity,  etc.    4'-',  pp.  iv,  26. 

B.  M.  [E.  427-  (25-)] 

1648.  T.  Cobbet. — A  Jvst  Vindication  of  the  Covenant  and  Church-estate  of  Children  of  Church-mern-      117 

bers:  as  also  of   their   right  unto  Baptisme  .  .  .   Hereunto  is  annexed  a    Refutation  of  a  certain 
Pamphlet,  stvli-d  the  Plain  atid  wel-grou7ided  Treatise  [no.  i],  etc.     4°,  pp.  xii,  296. 
Bodleian,  [4°,  B.  9.  Th.  BS.J 

1648.     J.  Church. — The  Divine  Warrant  of  Infant  Baptism;  or.  Six  Arguments  for  the  Baptism  of  the      118 
Infants  of  Christians,  etc. 
Bodleian,  [Pamph.  87.] 

1648.     A.  MiNGZEis. — A  Confutation  of  the   New  Presbyterian  Error,  shewing  not  onely  how  neere  our      iig 
late  Presbyterians  came  to  the  Anabaptists  in  reslrayning  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  from  the  jieople 
by  wav  of 'Examination,  as  they  doe  children  from  the  Sacrament  of  Baptisme,  etc.     16°,  pp.  24. 
B.  M.  [E.  1181.  (10.)] 

[1648.]  [W.  CooiCE.]  —  The  Font  uncovered,  for  Infant-Baptisme,  etc.     4°.  1:0 

1648.  R.Allen. — An  Antidote  against  Heresy;  or  a  Preservative  for  Protestants  against  the  pnyson  of      i:i 

Papists,  Anabaptists,  Arrians,  Arminians,  etc.  and  their  pestilent  errours,  etc.     16^,  pp.  xviii,  144. 
B.  M.  [E.  1168.  (2.)] 

[164S.]  S.  Gates.  —  A  New  Baptisme  and  Ministery,  etc.     4*^.  122 

1649.  The  Humble  Petition  and  Representation  of  several  Churches  of  God  in  London,  commonly  (though       1:3 
[3Apr.j      falslv)  called  W wait? //u/j.     [presented  to  Parliament  2  Apr.J     with  the  Answer  thereto.     4-',  pp.  8. 

B.  M.  [E.  549- ^'4)J 

1649.     J.  Drew.  —  K  .Serious  Atldresse  to  Samuel  Gates  for  a  Resolve  in  some  few  Quxries  touching  his      1:4 
[iAiir.]       Ne7u  Jiafitiiiiie  aitd  Ministery  \.ao.  122],  c\.c.     4^,  pp.  38. 
B.  M.[E.  549(«6.)J 

1649.     Eight  Reasons  for  Baptizing  Infants  born  of  Believing  Parents,  etc.     4',  p.  ii,  8.  125 

paJoD.]        B.  M.  [E   559.  (i8.)J 


[94] 


1649.     T.  Hooker. —The  Covenant  of  Grace  Opened:  Wherein  th'>se  paniciilars  are  handled;   viz.:       126 
[sJuljJ       (1)  What  the  Covenant  of  Graci;  is;  (?.)  What  the  Scales  of  the  Covenant  are;  (3)  Who  are  the 

Parlies  and  Sulijects  fit  to  receive  these  Scales.     From  all  which  Particulars  Infants  Baptisme  is 

proved  and  vindicated,  etc.     4"^',  jip.  ii,  86. 
[Hon.  J.  Hammond  Triimbnll.| 

1649.     EcclesiiF  Gemitus  sub  Anabaptistica  Tyraiinide.     [n.  pi.]     S^,  pp.  viii,  i;6.  127 

U.  M.  [E.  1214.  (2.)J  ' 

1649.     Infants  Baptism  Maintained;  or,  a  True  Account  of  the  Disputation  at  Ashford  in  Kent,  Julie  27,      128 
[3J«o.]       1649.     4°,  pp.  iv,  28. 

B.  M.  [E.  5S7.  (.2  )] 

1649.  P-   Chamberlen.  —  To  my  beloved   Friends  and   Neighbours  of   the   Blackfr>'ers,   etc.      [single      129 
niFeb.]     sheet.)     fol. 

B.  M.  [fol.  9.  (16.)] 

[1649.]  P.  Chamberlen.  —  A  Question  to  Dr.  Gouge  whether  that  Sprinkling  of  Infants  in  Baptism  is  of      130 
God  or  Man  ?    4°. 

[1649.]  W.  Hartlv.  —  Infant  Baptism  none  of  Chri.sts,  etc.  [cited  and  criticised  bvR.  Carpenter,  no.  191.]       131 

1650.  T.  Bakewell.  —The  Dippers  Plunp;ed  in  a  Sea  of  Absurdities.    Or,  An  Answer  to  Dr.  Chamberlen       132 

concernint;  .Sprinkling  the  Baptized  [no.  130],  etc.     4°,  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  605.  (4.)] 

1650.     P.  Chamberlen.  —  Master  Bakewells  Sea  of  Absurdities  concerning  Sprinkling  [no.  132]  calmly      133 
[l2Apr.j     driven  back,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  14. 
B.  M.  [702.  d.  12.  (lo.)J 

1650.     T.  Bakewell. — Doctor  Chamberlen  visited  with  a  Bunch  of  his  own  Grapes,  gathered  out  of  his      134 
po  M»jj     Packet  of  Letters,  etc.  .  .  .  Also,  an  Answer  to  Dr.   Chamberleus  Reply  concerning  Sprinkling 
the  Baptized  [no.  133],  etc.     4°,  pp.  28. 
B.  M.  [E.  601.  (4.)] 

1650.     R.  Baxter.  — Plain  Scripture  Proof  of  Infants  Church-Membership  and  Baptism,  being  the  Argu-      135 
ments  prepared  for  (and  partly  managed  in)  the  publick  dispute  with  Mr.  Tombes  at  Bewdley,  ou 
the  1st  dav  of  Jan.  1649,  etc.     4°,  pp.  liv,  346. 
B.  M.  [K..  P.  gold  no.  685.  (3.)] 

1650.     J.   Couch. — Anabaptistorum  Scrupuli:  or,  Answer  of  a  Kentish  Anabaptist,  made  in  the  year      136 
[4  Feb.]       1649.     4°,  pp.  viii,  '.o. 
B.  M.  [E.  623.  (2.)] 

1650.     N.  Stephens. — A  Precept  for  the  Baptisme  of  Infants  out  of  the  New  Testament,  etc.  4°,  pp.  x,  62.       137 
[10  Feb.]         B.  M.  [E.  623.  (9.)] 

1650.     R.  Everard.  —  Baby-Baptisme  Routed,  etc.     4°.  138 

1650.     H.  Jersey.  —  A  Store-house  of  provision  to  further  resolution  in  several  cases  of  conscience,  and      139 
questions  now  in  dispute,  etc.     8°.     [Cr<7j/>y,  i :  322.] 

1650.     D.  King.  —  \  Way  in  Sion,  sought  out,  and  found,  for  Believers  to  walk  in,  etc.  .  .   .  Wherein  is      140 
cleared  up  by  Scripture  and  Arguments  lounded  upon  Scripture,  who  of  right  mav  administer  Ordi- 
nances, and  amongst  the  rest  the  Ordinance  of  Baptism  with  Water,  etc.    "4°.     \_Ivimey,  ii :  577.] 

1650.  D.  King.  —  Some  Beams  of  Light  for  the  further  clearing  up  of  the  Way;  wherein  crooked  things      141 

are  made  straight,  and  rough  places  made  plain  by  direct  Scriptures,  etc.     4°.     [/viiiiej',  ii:  57S.J 

1651.  T.  Hall. — The  Font  Guarded  with  XX  Arguments,  containing  a   Compendium  <if   that  Great       142 
[20  Mar.]     Controversie  of  Infant  Baptism;   Proving  the  lawfulness  thereof,  with  a  word  to  one  Collier,  and 

another  to  Mr.  Tombes  in  the  end  of  the  Book.     4°,  pp.  xviii,  136. 
B.  M.  [E.  658.  (2.)] 

1651.     D.  Cawdrby.  — The  Inconsistencie  of  the  Independent  way,  with  Scripture  and  It  Self  .  .  .  with  a      143 
[l6M»j]     Diatribe  .  .  .  concerning  Baptism  of  Infants  of  Non-Confederate  Parents,  etc.    4',  pp.  xxvi.  220. 
B.  M.  [E.  629.  (i.)J 

1651.     S.  Chidley. — The  Separatists  Answer  to  the  Anabaptists  Arguments  concerning  Baptism,  or  the       144 
[22  Oct.]     answer  of  S.  C.  to  J.  S.[pilsburyj  concerning  the  point  in  difference,  etc.     4',  [n.  p.  J  pp.  16. 
B.  M.  [E.  643.  (22.)] 

1651.     G.  FiRMiN.  —  A  Serious  Question  stated:  viz.  Whether  the   Ministers  of  Enghnd  are  bound  bv  the       145 
Word  of  God  to  Baptize  the  Children  of  all  such   Parents  which  sny  they  believe  in  Jesus  Christ, 
but  refuse  to  submit  to  Church  Discipline  .  .  .  The  negative  is  defended,  etc.     4'^,  pp.  xxiv,  40. 
B.  M.  [i  15.  e.  5.] 

1651.     H.  AiNswoRTH.  —  A  Seasonable  Discourse.     Or,  a  Censure  upon  a  Dialogue  of  the  Anabaptists,      146 
etc.     [first  issued  (probably)  in  1623,  and  again  in  1644  (no.  25).]     4^^,  pp.  iv,  74. 
Bodleian,  [Pamph.  94.]  ' 


ISO 
151 


[95] 

1652.     Of  CInists  Testaments,  viz  :  Baptisme  and  ihe  Supper,  etc.  written  in  A.  D.  1624  bv  Jacob  Behm,       147 
[£)M>;]     and  Knulislied  by  John  Sparrow,  etc.     4^,  up.  xxvi,  9S,  x. 

B.  M.  [K.  6(.5.  U.)] 

1652.     The  Disputes  between  Mr.  Cranford  and  Dr.  Chambcrlen,  at  the  house  of  Mr  William  Webb  at  the      148 
t8Jun»]      end  nf  Hartholoniow  Lane  by  the  Old  Kxcliaii.U'e  i  Mar.  and  i,  6,  13  Apr.  1652.     Published  fur  the 
satisfaction  of  all  that  love  the  truth.     4^,  pp.  vi,  2S,  iv. 
B.  M.  [E.  666.  (b.)] 

1652.  J.  Spilsbury.  — A  Treatise  concerning  the  Lawful  Subjects  of  Baptism,  wherein  are  handled  these  149 
particulars:  (i)  Haptizing  of  Infants  confuted;  (2)  the  Covenant  of  Abiahain  handled;  (-,)  the 
Baptism  administered  bv  an  Antichrislian  power  confuted;  (4)  how  wantint;  church  or  ordinance 
are  to  be  recovered;  (s)  Ihe  Covenant,  not  Baptism,  forms  the  Church;  aiid  hinv  ('.)  there  is  no 
succession  under  the  New  Testament,  but  such  as  is  spiritually  by  faith  in  the  Word  of  God. 
[probably  2d  ed.  of  no.  41.]  4°,  pp.  vi,  74. 
B.  M.  [4323.  b.J 

1652.  J.  To.MBES.  —  Pmcursor;  or,  a.  Forerunner  to  a  large  Review  of  the  Dispute  concerning  Infant- 
baptism.     4°.     {Crosby,  i:  2<)$.'\ 

1652.  C.  Blackwood.  — A  Brief  Catechism  concerning  Baptism,  first  published  at  the  end  of  his  Sform- 
ins;  [no.  40J,  etc.  afterwards  reprinted  for  the  satisfaction  and  information  of  the  people  of  God  in 
Lancashire,  etc.     4^.     yivimey,\\\  233.] 

1652.     J.  ToMBES. — An  Addition  to  the  Apology  for  the  two  Treatises  concerning  Infant  Baptisme  [no.      152 
S7],  etc.     4°. 

1652.     J.  ToMBBS.  —  Letters  that  passed  between  Mr.  Baxter  and  Mr.  Tombes  concerning  the  Dispute  [on      153 
Infant  Church  Membership  and  Baptism].     4°,  pp.  14. 
B.  M.  [K..  P.  gold  no.  6S5.  (3.)] 

1652.     H.  Lawrence.  — A  Plea  for  the  Vse  of  Gospell  Ordinances,  etc.  against  Mr.  Dels  Booke  entituled      154 
The  Doctrine  0/ Baplisvtes  [no.  ii6],  etc.     4'-',  pp.  viii,  S4. 
B.  M.  [E.  654.  (2.)] 

1652.     J.  Taylor.  —  A  Discourse  on  Baptism,  its  Institutions,  and   Efficacy  upon  all  believers.    4°,  pp.      155 

[27  Sot.]      iv,  to. 

B.  M.  [E.  6S2.  (2.)] 

1652-4.  J.  Tombes. — Anti-pxdobaptism,   or  no  plain  .  .  .  Scripture  .  .  .  Proof  of  Infants  Baptism,  etc.      156 
[■a Not.]     4^,  pp.  viii,  260.     I  1  wo  parts.] 
B.  M.  [E.  6S2.  (3.)] 

1652.     D.  Cawdrey.  —  A  Sober  Answer  to  a  Serious  Qt'estion  propounded  by  Mr.  G.  Firmin,  etc.  whether      157 
riODM.]     the  Ministers  of  England  are  bound  .  .  .  to  baptize  [no.  145],  etc.     4'-',  pp.  viii,  32. 
B.  M.  [E.  6S3.  (23.)] 

1652.     T.  Gataker&S.  Ward. — De  Baptismatis  Infantilis  Vi  &  Efficacia  Disceptalio,  Privatira  habita,      158 
rsjjui.]     inter  Virum  celeberrimum  D'num  S.  Wardum  .  .  .  etT.  Gatakerum.     S-',  pp.  viii,  272. 
B.  M.  [E.  1436.  (i.)] 

1652.  W.  Erbury.  —  A  Call  to  the  Churches;  or  a  Packet  of  Letters  to  the  Pastors  of  Wales,  presented      159 
nuFob.]     to  the  Baptized  Teachers  there,  etc.     4-',  pp.  ii,  52. 

B.  M.  [E.  6S8.  (1.)] 

1633.     T.  FtJLLER.  — The  Infants  Advocate  of  Circumcision  in  Jewish  and  Baptism  in  Christian  Children,      160 
r2U>T]      etc.     8'-^,  pp.  xxii,  176,  40. 
B.  M.  [E.  i43>.  (I.)] 

1653.  W.  Lyford.  —  An  .Apologie  for  our  Publick  Ministerie  and  Infant  Baptism.     Written  som  years  ago      161 
nsMaj]     for  Private  satisfaction  of  som  Dissenting  Brethren,  etc.     4S  pp.  vi,  46. 

B.  M.  [E.  697.  (.).)] 

1653.     J.  Spittlehouse. — A  Confutation  of  the  Assertions  of  Mr.  Samuel  Oates  (in  relation  to  his  not      162 
[II  Jane]     practising  the  laying  on  of  hands  on  all  baptized  Believers)  .  .  .  who  doth  contrary  wise  affirm,  etc. 
4°.  [no  title  p.]  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  699.  (12  )] 

1653.     J.  Kellett,  J.  Po.MROY,   P.  Glisson.  —  A  Faithfvl  Discovery  of  a  treacherous  Design  of  Mys-       163 
risJuBc]     tical  Antichrist  displaying  Christs  Banners,  etc.    4°,  pp.  viii,  60. 
B.  M.  [E.  699.  (.3.)] 

1653.     H.  Haggar.  — The  Foundation  of  the  Font  discovered  to  the  view  of  all  that  desire  to  behold  it,       164 
[i;Aa(.]     and  the  baptizing  of  Men  and  Women  when  they  believe  (in  rivers  and  foimtains)  proved  to  be  a 
standing  Ordinance  in  the  Church  of  Christ  to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  by  plain  Scripture  proof;  in 
answerto  Mr.  Cooke  [no.  120J,  and  Mr.  Baxter  [no.  135J,  etc.     4",  pp.  viii,  132. 
B.  M.  [E.  7ii.(<.)J 
1653.     G.  Baitmav. — The  Arrow  of  the  Almighty  shot  out  of  the  creatures  bowe  against  the  uncalled      165 
[9tlcpi.]     Ministers  in   England  .  .  .  likewise  here    is  opened  .  .  .  the   Mystery   in    Baptisme,  etc.      4^, 
pp.  xii,  122. 
B.  M.  [E.  712.  (16.)] 


[96] 


1653.     J-  CoODWiV.  — Philade7/>'kia:  or  XL.  Queries  for  the  discovery  of  fnitli  in  this  question  ;  Whether      166 
persons  baptized  after  a  profession  of  faith  may  hold  communion  with  churches  .  .  .  baptized  in 
infnncv?    4^,  pp.  32. 
U.  M.  [E.  702.  (7.)] 

1653.     [W.  A.]  —  An  Answer  to  Mr.  J.  G.[oodwin]  his  XL.  Queries,  touching  the  Lawfulness  or  unlawful-      167 
[23 Sept.]    ness  of  holding  church  communion  between  such  who  have  W-mw  ba|)tized  after  their  beleeving, 
and  others  who  have  not  otherwise  been  baptized  then  in  their  Infaucie  [no.  i(i6J,  etc.     4^,  pp.  oo. 
li.  M.  [E.  713.  (17.)] 

1653.     W.  Kave. —  Baptism  without  Bason:  or,  Plain  Scripture-proof  against  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     4°,      i58 

ru  Not.]      PP    X,  42. 

B.  M.  [E.  715-  (i3-)] 

1653.     J.  Goodwin  — Water-dipping  no  Firm  Footing  for  Church  communion,  etc.     4°,  pp.  92.  169 

ri'2l)M.]         B.  M.  [E.  723.  (i5.)J 

1653.     A  False  Jew:  or,  a  wonderful  Discovery  of  a  Scot.  Baptized  at  London  for  a  Christian,  circumcised      170 
[tuDcc]     at  Rome  to  act  a  Jew,  re-baptized  at  Hexham  for  a   Believer,  but  found  out  at  Newcastle  to  be  a 

Cheat :  Being  a  true  Kelation  of  the  delecting  of  one  Thomas  Ramsey,  born  of  Scotch  parents  at 

London,  etc.     4',  pp  viii,  14,  xiv. 
B.M.  I  £.724.(6.)] 

i6|;3.     [T.  TiLLAM.]  —  Banners  of  Love  displaied  over  the  Church  of  Christ  walking  in  the  order  of  the      171 
[]6Jan.]     Gospel  at  Hexliam_.  .  .  against  the  Jesuitical  design  lately  attempted  by  the  false  Jew:  or,  an 
Answer  to  a  Narrative  stuffed  with  untruths  [no.  170],  etc.     4^,  pp.  4S. 
B.  M.  [E.  726.  (S.)] 

1653.     C.  Sydenham.  —  .A.  Christian  Sober  and  Plain  Exercitation  on  the  two  grand  practical  Controver-      172 
sifS  of  these  times;  Infant  Baptisme  and  Singing  cf  Psalms.     8^,  pp.  vi,  210. 
B.  M.  [E.  .443-  (■•)] 

1653.     H.  Savage. — Tres  Questiones  Theologies  in  Comitiorum  Vesperiis  discussae.     An  Pxdobaptismus      173 
sitlicitus?     Christus  in  quern  baptizamur,  sit  Deus  ?     Hjeretici  qua  Hseretici,  sint  supplicio  dam- 
nandi?    Oxou.     4°.     llVaii,  s.  n.J 

1653.    J.  ToMBES. — ^^Refutatio  Positionis,  ejusque  Confirmationis,  Psdobaptismum  esse  licitum,  affirman-      174 
tis,  ab  Henrico  Savage,  S.  T.  D.  [no.  173],  etc.     4-".     [Crasfy,  i:  295.] 

1653.     H.  Whistler.  —  An  Aim  at  an  Upshot  for  Infant  Baptism,  etc.    4^.     [If/i//,  s.  n.]  175 

1633.     [H.  D'anvers,  E.  Chillbnden,  &'  i^  oi/icrs.'] — Eight  Questions  in  reference  to  that  Principle  of      176 
the  Foundation  of  the  Doctrine  of  Christ,  termed  Laying-o7i  0/ Hands,  etc.     4°. 

1653.     J.  More.  —  A  Lost  Ordinance  Restored :  or  Eight  Questions,  etc.  with  a  General  Exhortation  to      177 
alt  Baptized  Churches  not  yet  under  the  Practice  ...  of  the  laying  ou  of  hands,  etc    4^,  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  727.  (..)J 

1653.    J.   H00RN13EEK.  —  Suinma  Controversiarum  Religionis:  cum  Infidelibus,   Hsereticis,  Schismaticis :      178 
Id  est  .  .  .  Anabaptistis,  etc.     8-",  pp.  xii,  1002,  xiv. 
B.  M.  [3559-  a.] 

1653.     R.  Byfield.  —  A  Short  Treatise  describing  the  true  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  Evills  of  Schisrae,      179 
Anabaptism  and  Libertinism,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  40. 
B.  M.  [T.  1562.  (i.)J 

1653.     W.  Allen.  —  Some  Baptismal  Abuses  briefly  discovered,  etc.     4°,  pp.  xvi,  120.  180 

B.  M.  [E.  702.  (i2.)J 

1633-     [W.  E.][rbury.]  — The   Madmans  Plea;  or,  A  Sober  Defence  of  Capt.  Chillingtons  Church,  etc.       181 
4-',  pp.  ii,  10. 

B.  M.  [E.  7.5.  (.7.)] 

1653.  E.  PuNCLB.  —  A  Cryer  in  the  Wildemesse  of  England  declaring  the  Baptisme  of  the  Eternal!  Spirit      182 
[23  Dec]     to  be  the  onely  Baptisme  in  Christs  Kingdom,  etc.     4°,  pp.  xii,  86. 

B.M.fE.  725.(7)] 

•  653.     [J.  H.]  [ORNE.]  —  Diatribe  Peri  Paido-Baptismoii :  or,  a  Consideration  of  Infant  Baptism :  Wherein       183 
[13 Fell.]     the  Grounds  of  it  are  laid  down,  and  the  Validity  of  them  discussed,  and  many  things  of  Mr. 
Tombes  about  it,  etc.     4^,  pp.  viii,  160. 
B.  M.  [E.  729.  (3.)]    • 

1C54.     J.  ToMBES.  —  A  public  dispute  betwixt  J.  Tombes  respondent,  J.  Cragge  and  H.  Vaughan,  oppo-      184 
nents,  touching  Infant  Bajjtism  .  .  .  Also  a  sermon  ...  by  Mr.  Cragge  .  .  .  wherein  the  neces- 
sity of  dipping  is  refuted,  and  Infant  Baptism  asserted,  etc.     8*^. 
B.  M.  [1355.  a.] 

1654.  Anabaptists  Anatomized  and  Silenced  in  a  Public  Dispute  between  J.  Tombes,  J.  Cragge  and  H.       185 

Vaughan  Touching  Infant  Baptism,  5  Sept.  1653,  etc.     S^,  pp.  xxii,  iiz. 
B.  M.  [1355.  a.] 


[97] 


1654     J.  Tom  BBS.  —  A  Plea  for  Anti-P.-edobaptists  asifninst  the  Vanity  and  Falsehood  of  Scribled  Papers      186 
racMkjJ     entituled  T/u  A nabaptnts  Atuitonnzc-d  [no.  1S5J,  etc.     4'-',  pp.  ii,  44. 
B.  M.  IE.  73S.  (7.)1 

1654.     R.  Farnworth.  — To  you  that  are  called  by  the  name  of  Baptists,  or  the  Baptized  people,  etc.    [no      187 
pSAug.J     title-page]     4°,  pp.  S. 
B.  M.  [E.  S09.  (iS.)] 

1654.     Conference  Toiichant  Le  Pedobaptesme,  teniie  a  Paris  entre  Le  Sieur  Jean  Mestrezat,  Pasteur  de      188 
[15  Sept.]    I'Eglize  Refornit5e  de  Charenton  les  Paris  &  Theodore  Naudin,  doctcur  en  medecine.     Imprim^ 
a  Londres,  etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  66. 
B.  M.  [E.  S12.  (3.)J 

1654.    W.  Britten.  —  The  Moderate  Baptist;  briefly  shewing  Scripture-way  for  that  initiatory  Sacrament      189 
of  Baptism,  etc.     Wherein  may  appear  that  the  Baptists  of  our  times  hold  not  those  strange  opin- 
ions as  many  heretofore  have  done,  etc.     4°.     [Crosby, '\:  2^^.'^ 

1654.    S.  Ford.  — Two  Dialogues  concerning  the  Practical  Use  of  Infant  Baptism,  etc.    8°.     [IVatt,  s.  n.]      190 

1654.     R.  Carpenter. — The  Anabaptist  Washt  and  washt,  and  shrunk  in  the  washing:  Or,  a  Scholas-      191 
ticall  Discussion  of  the  much-agitated  controversie  concerning  Infant-Baptisme  ;  occasioned  by  a 
Publike  Disputation,  Before  a  great  assembly  ...  in  the  Church  of  Newport-Pagnell :  betwixt 
Mr.  Gibs,  Minister  there,  and  the  author,  etc.     16°,  pp.  xxvi,  470. 
B.  M.  [E.  1484.  (i.)] 

>6S4'    J.Rogers. — Ohel,  or  Beth  Shemesh:  A  Tabernacle  for  the  Sun,  ox  Irenicum  Evangelicum,zxi      xga 
[7  Not.]      Idea  of  Church  Discipline,  etc.     4°,  pp.  xiv,  326,  xlii. 
B.  M.  [E.  717  ] 

1654.    T.  Patient. — The  Doctrine  of  Baptisme,  etc.    4°.  193 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1654.  R.  Baylie.  —  The  Disswasive  [no.  71],  etc.  Vindicated  from  the  Exceptions  of  ,  .  .  Mr.  Tombes      194 
r4Ju.]      [no.  152],  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  88. 

B.  M.  [E.  234.  (7)] 

1655.  J.  Reading. — Anabaptism  Routed:  or  a  Survey  of  the  controverted  points  concerning:  (i)  Infant      195 
[«Juij]      Baptisme;  (2)  Pretended  Necessity  of  Dipping;  (3)  The  dangerous  Practice  of  Rebaptizing,  etc. 

4°,  pp   xvi,  204. 

B.  M.  [E.  845.  (14.)] 

1655.     J.   Goodwin.  —  Cata-Baptism;  or  New  Baptism  waxing  old,   an  answer  to  W.  A.  etc.     4°,  pp.       19O 
[21  Juljl     xcviii,  406,  xviii. 
B.  M.  [E.  849.] 

'^SS-    J-  Ives.  —  Infant  Baptism  disproved,  and  Believers  Baptism  proved,  being  an  answer  to  several      197 
Arguments  propounded  by  Mr.  Alexander  Kellie,  and  sent  to  him,  elc.     4-'.     \,Crosby,\'v:  24S.] 

[1655.]  S.  Fisher.  —  Baby  Baptism  mere  Babyism,  etc.     fol.     [only_/t;//o  in  the  controversy.]    [Crosby,  \:      198 
363.    Ivimey,\\\  248.] 

1655.     H.  Savage. — Thesis  sus  Pzdobaptismum  esse  licitum  Defensio,  contra  J.  Tombes  [no.  174],  etc.       199 
Oxon.  4°.     [IVatt,  s.  n.] 

1655.     H.  Hammond. — The  Baptism  of   Infants  defended,  against  the  exceptions  of  Mr.  Tombes,  etc.      200 
4°.     [*Ka//,  s.  n.] 

1655.     W.  Allen.  —  A  Doubt  resolved,  or.  Satisfaction  for  the  Seekers  [on  Baptism,  etc.]    4°,  pp.  ii,  38.         201 
B.  M.  [4323.b.] 

1655.    J.  Parnell.  —  The  Watcher:    or  the  Stone  cut  out  of  the  Mountain,  etc.  or  a  discovery  of  the      202 
ground  and  end  of  all  .  .  .  seals,  etc.     4°,  pp.  iv,  52. 
B.  M.  [E.  845.  (18.)] 

1653.    T.  I.AMB.  —  Tnith  Prevailing  against  the  fiercest  opposition;  or,  an  Answer  to  Mr.  I.  Goodwins      203 
Water  Dipping  [no.  169],  etc.     4^,  pp.  xx,  128. 
B.  M.  [4323.  b.] 
1655.     S.  Ford.  —  Dialogues  on  Infant  Baptism,  etc.    8°.  204 

[24Sfpt.]        B.  M.  [K.  P.  gold  no.  351.  18.] 

1655.  [H.Woodward.]  —  An  Appeal  to  the  Churches  of  Christ  for  their  righteous  judgment  in  the  mat-      205 
ri3F«b.]     ters  of  Christ,  etc.  [as  to  Infant  Baptism,  etc.]    [n.  p.]    4°,  pp.  44. 

B.  M.  [E.  863.  (6.)] 

1656.  M.  Mason. — The  Boasting  Baptist  dismounted,  and  the  Beast  disarmed  and  sorely  wounded  with-      206 
[23A|ir.]     out  any  carnal  weapon,    etc.     4^,  pp.   ii,  12.     [the  "Boasting  Baptist"  was  Jonathan  Johnson; 

Mason,  I  judge,  was  a  Qu.iker.] 

B.  M.  [k.  877.  (2.)] 
1656.     A  Confession  of  the  Faith  of  several  [Baptist]  Churches  of  Christ  in  the  County  of  Somerset,  and      207 
noAuf.]     of  some  Churches  in  the  Counties  neer  adjacent,  elc.     4°,  pp.  xviii,  40. 

B.  M.  [E.  S85.  (6.)] 


[98] 


1656     [J.  PendarvisI  fet  al.] — Sighs  for  Sion :  or  Faith  and  Love  constraining  some  prievincs  in   her      208 
Sorrow,  and  Rroanings  for  her  Deliverance,     liy  a  few  of  her  weak  and  unworlhy  children,  etc. 
\Ivinuy,  ii :  64.] 

1656.     J.   Cloppenburgius.  —  Gii}i_erce>ia    Theolo^ia    Anabapiisiirir,   Di<;piitationbus   XLIIX.      Et   F.       2og 
Spanheniii  Uintriba  historica  de  Origine,  Progressu,  &  bectis  Anabapiislorum,  elc.     Kranekerae, 
24°,  pp.  xvi,  4-56. 
B.  M.  [848.  "b.  II.] 

1656.     Of   Laying  on  of  Hands,  Heb.  vi:  2,  Or,  a  Discourse  containing  these  4  Chapters:  (i)  Ends  of      210 
laying  on  of  hands;  (2)  What  it  is  not;  (3)  What  it  is;  (4)  Thai  Christ  never  instituted  it  or  com- 
manded it  as  practised  bv  some  Baptized  Believers,  elc.     4^',  pp.  ii,  14. 
B.M.  [700.5.24.  (2.)J 

1656.     A  True  and  Faithfull  Narrative  (for  substance)  of  a  Publique  Dispute,  between  Mr.  T.  Porter  and      211 
Mr.  H.  Haccar,  concerning  Infant  Baptism,  at  Ellesmer,  Salop,  30  Apr.  1656.     4^,  pp.  vl,  22. 
B.  M.  [Er'8S7.  (1.)] 

1656.     S.  Winter. — The  Summe  of  diverse  Sermons  preached  in  Dublin  .  .  .  wherein  the  Doctrine  of      212 
Infant    Baptism   is  asserted,  and  the   main  objections  of  Mr.  Tombes  [no.  156I,  etc.  answered. 
Dublin,  h°,  pp.  xiv,  i!>2. 
B.  M.  [4452.  a.] 

1656.     J.  Craggb.  —  Arraignment  and  Conviction  of  Anabaptism  against  Mr.  Tombes  [no.  156],  etc.     8°.        213 
Bodleian,  [8=,  N.  88.  Th.] 

1656.  Eirenikon:  a  poeme,  wherein  is  perswaded  the  composing  of  the  differences  of  all  the  faithfull  in       214 
[8>ov.]      Christ  Jesus,  under  what  form  soever,  whether  Episcopall,  Presbyterian,  Congregalionall,  or  Anti- 

pedobapiist.     4°,  pp.  32. 
B.  M.  [E.  892.  (6.)] 

1657.  J.  Tombes. — Anti-Pasdo-baptism ;  or  The  Third  Part  [.see   no.  156],  etc.     Being  a  full  Review  of      215 

the  Dispute  concerning  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     4^,  pp.  xxviii,  932. 

1657.     R.  PuRNELL.  —  A  Little  Cabinet  richly  stored,  etc.  .  .  .  Milk  for  Babes  and  Meat  for  strong  Men,       216 
etc.     12°,  pp.  46S.    \_Ivitney,  ii :  465.  J 

[1657.]  A  Short  Discovery  of  his   Highness  the  Lord  Protector's  intentions  touching  the  Anabaptists  in  the      217 
Army,  and  all  such  as  ari;  against  his  reforming  things  in  the  Church  ;  which  was  first  communi- 
cated to  a  Scotch  Lord,  who  is  called  Twidle;  but  is  now  come  to  the  ear  of  the  Anabaptists: 
upon  which  there  is  propounded  thirty-six  queries  for  his  Highness  to  answer  to  his  own  Con- 
science.    By  a  well-wisher  to  the  Anabaptists  prosperity,  etc.     4°.     \Crosby,  iii:  231.] 

1657.    J.  GosNOLD.  —  Baptismon  Didaclie :  or,  a  discourse  of  the  Baptism  of  Water  and  the  Spirit,  etc.      2 18 
4°,  ii,  4S. 

B.  M.  [700.  g.  21.  (i.)] 

1657.    J.  Watts.  —  A  Scribe,  Pharisee,  Hypocrite  and  his  Letter  answered,  Separates  churched.  Dippers      219 
sprinkled,  or  a  Vindication  of  the  Church  and  universities  of    England,  etc.  .  .  .  whereunto  is 
added  A   narration  of  a  publick  dipping  June  26,  1656,  iu  a  pond,   etc.     4°,  pp.   Ivi,  264,  212, 
viii,  I20. 

B.  M.  [E.  921.  (i.)] 

1657.  S.Ford.  —  The  Use  of  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     8".  220 

Bodleian,  [8^,  G.  29.  Th.  BS.] 

1658.  A.  Houghton.  —  An  Antidote  against  H.   Haggars  poysonous  pamphlet  entituled  T/te  foundation      221 
pSftoT.]     [no.  164],  etc.     4°.  pp.  viii,  334. 

B.  M.  [E.  961.  (i.)J 

1658.  P.  Gunning  &  H    Denne. — A  Contention  for  Truth.     In  two  several  publique  Disputations  .  .  .      222 
nsDco.]     concerning  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  whether  lawful  or  unlawful,  etc.     4-',  pp.  vi,  46. 

B.  M.  [E.  963.  (i.)J 

1659.  J.  Tombes.  —  A  Short  Catechism  about  Baptism,  etc.     8°,  pp.  22.  223 

B.  M.  [E.  1854.(1.)] 

1659.     J.  Tombes. — Feh  de  se  ;  or,  Mr.  Baxters  Self-Destroying,  manifested  in  twenty  arguments  against      224 
Infant-baptism  out  of  his  own  writings,  etc.     4°.     {Croihy,  i:  296.] 

1659.     S.Patrick. — Aqua  Genitalis :  a  Discourse  concerning  Baptism,  etc.     12°.     [on  Acts  xvi:  33.]  225 

[Dr.  Williams  s  Library.) 

1659.     A  Disputation  concerning  Church-members  and  their  Children  in  answer  to  xxi.  Questions,  by  an      226 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Boston   in  New  England,  etc   wherein  the  stale  of  such  children  when 
adult,  together  wi;h  their  dutv  toward  the  Church,  is  discussed,  etc.     4°. 
B.  M.(K.  P.  gold  no.  794.(3)] 

1659.     Scripture  Baotism  and  Church-Way  with  True  Seekers,     [n.  pi.  n.  p.]    4°,  pp.  24.  227 

[27M.t:         B.  M.  [E.  9i4(5)J 


[99] 


i659-     Declaration  of  Several  of  the  People  called  Anabaptists,  in  and  about  the  City  of  London,     [single      228 
sheet  I  fo). 

B.  M.  [S16.  m.  24.  (9  )] 

1659.    A  Further  Testimony  to  Truth  ;  or,  some  Earnest  Groans  for  a  Righteous  Settlement  by  some  Bap-      229 
ti/xd  Congregations  in  Leicester,  etc.     [broadside.] 
[Mass.  Histor.  Society's  Library.] 

1659.     R.  HuBDERTHORNE.  —  An  Answer  to  a  Declaration  put  forth  by  the  general  consent  of  the  People      230 
called  Anabaptists  in  .  .  .  London,  etc.    4°,  pp.  24. 
B.  M.  [4139.  b.] 

1659.     [J.  Fell.]  —  The  Interests  of  England  stated;  or,  a  Faithful  and  Just  Account  of  the  Aims  of  all      231 
Parties  now  prevailing;  distinctly  treating  of  the  designraents  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  Royalists, 
Presbyterians,  and  Anabaptists,  etc.     4°.     (  H^aii,  s.  n.] 

1659.     T.  AsHTON.  — Bloodthirsty  Cyrus,  unsatisfied  with  Blood;  or,  the  boundless  cruelty  of  an  Anabap-      232 
tist's  Tyranny,  manifested  in  a  Letter  of  Col.  J.  Mason,  Governor  of  Jersey,  etc.    4°.     [IVatt, 
s.  n.J 

1659.     T.  AsHTON. — Satan  in  Samuel's  Mantle;  or,  the  cruelty  of  Germany  acted  in  Jersey;  containing      233 
the  arbitrary,  bloody  and  tyrannical  proceedings  of  John  Mason,  of  a  baptized  Church,  etc.     4°. 
ill-'atl,  s.  n.J 

1659.     L  Bourne.  —  Defence  and   Justification    of   Ministers    maintenance  by  Tithes,    Infant   Baptism,      234 
Human  Learning,  etc.  in  reply  to  some  Anabaptists,  etc.     16°,  pp.  xvi,  98. 
B.  M.  [E.  1907.(1.)] 

if)59.    J.  Ellis.  —  The  Pastor  and  the  Clerk:  or  a  Debate  (real)  concerning  Infant-Baptisme:  wherein      235 
[June]        (1)  the  truth  of  that  doctrine  is  (afresh)  cleared;  (2)  The  Scriptures  alledged  for  it  are  vindicated; 

(3)  The  Objections  usual  are  briefly  answered ;  (4)  and  the  Seeds-men  of  them  truly  Cyphered,  etc 

16-*,  pp.  XX,  20S. 
B.  M.  [E.  1909.(2.)] 

1659.     The  Anabaptists  Faith  and  Belief  Opened,  etc.     [single  sheet]  fol.  236 

p'Bcpi.]        B.  M.  [669.  f.  21.  (72.)] 

1659.     A  Declaration  of  a  small  Society  of  Baptized  Believers,  undergoing  the  name  of  Free-Willers,  about      237 
pa  Jan.]     the  citv  of  London,  etc.     [s.  sh.]  fol. 
B.  M.  [669.  f.  22.  (67.)] 

1659.     Anti-Quakerism  ;  or  a  Character  of  the  Quakers  Spirit  from  its  Original  and  First  Cause.     Written      238 
[5JM.]      by  a  pious  Gentleman  that  hath  been  thirteen  years  amongst  the  Separatists,  etc.     [s.  sh.]  fol. 
[B.  M.  [669.  f.  22.  (59.)] 

1659.     H.  Adis.  —  A  Fanaticks  Mite  cast  into  the  Kings  Treasury ;  being  a  Sermon  Printed  to  the  King,      239 
[12  Jul.]     because  not  preached  before  the  King.     4*^,  pp.  xvi,  60.     [contains  appended  the  Declaration  (no. 
22S),  etc.  of  Adis's  church.] 
B.  M.  [4473i  aaa.  46.  (i.)] 

1659.     A  Declaration  of  some  of  those  People  in  or  near  London  called  Anabaptists  who  own  and  believe      240 
[14  J&n.]     that  Gods  love  in  the  death  of  his  Son  is  extended  to  all  men,  and  are  in  the  practice  of  the  Doc- 
trines of  Christ  contained  in  Hebrews  vi:  i,  2.     folio,  s.  sh. 
B.  M.  [669.  f.  22.  (68.)] 

1659.     A  Serious  Manifesto  and  Declaration  of  the  Anabaptist,  and  other  Congregational  Churches,  Touch-      241 
[2d  Feb.]     ing  the  present  Transactions  of  the  Avail's  of  this  Commonwealth,  both  in  Church  and  State, 
[single  sheet)  fol. 
B.  M.  [669.  f.  23.  (65.)] 

1659.     A   Brief  Confession   or  Declaration   of   Faith  set  forth  by  many  of   us,  who  are  (falsely)  ciUed      242 
[l6Uu.]    Stn.llMpriStS,  to  inform  all  men  (in  these  days  of  scandal  and  reproach)  of  our  innocent  Belief 
and  Practise,  etc.     4°,  pp.  12. 
B.  M.  [E.  1017.  (14.)] 

1659.     Thp  Arraignment  of  the  Anabaptists  Good  Old  Cause,  with  the  manner  and  proceedings  of    the      243 
[22  Mu.]     Court  of  Justice  against  him,  etc.     4°,  pp.  16. 
B.  M.  [E.  1017.  (32.)] 

1659.  A  Phanatique  League  and  Covenant  solemnly  entered  into  by  the  Asserters  of  the  Good  Old  Cause,      244 
[24  Uu.]     etc.     [single  sheet]  fol. 

B.  M.[669.  f.  24.  (11.)] 

1660.  The  Character  of  a  Phanatique,  etc.     [single  sheet]  fol.  S4S 
[»M.r.]         B.  M.  [669.  f.  24.  [34.J 

1660.     Quesumus  TV,  etc.  :  Or,  the  Supplement  for  the  new  Letanv  for  these  Times,  etc.     4°,  pp.  8.  246 

B.  M.  LE.  1017.  (2.)J 


[lOO] 


1660.     G.  Whitehead.  — The  Authority  of  the  Tnie  Ministry,  in  Baptizing  with  the  Spirit,  etc.     Being  a       247 
short  return  to  a  Honk  entituled  A    Reply  to  a  Scandalous  Paper,  subscribed   by  one  Samuel 
Bradley,   a  Baptist   Teacher,    as  concerning   a   dispute    that   was   between   some   of    the   people 
called  Quakers,  and  soin$  Baptists  in  Southwarke,  etc.    4'-',  pp.  16.     [Smith's  Friends  Books,  etc. 
ii :  887.] 

1660.    J.  CoLLENS.  —  A  Message  from  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  to  the  Poeple  called  Anabaptists,  etc.     4°.      248 
IWatt,  s.  n.] 

1660.     A  Breife  Description  or  Character  of  the  Religion  and  Manners  of  the  Phanatiques  in  General!,      249 
etc.     16°,  pp.  ii,  52. 
B.  M.  [E.  1765.  (i.)] 

1660.     W.  Allen.  —  A  Retractation  of  Separation,  wherein  VI.  Arguments  formerly  erected  for  the  service      250 
of  Separation,  upon  the  account  of  Infant  Baptisme  are  taken  down  ;  and  VI.  other  arguments 
for  saints  penerall  communion  .  .  .  arc  erected  in  their  room,  etc.     4°,  pp.  vi,  72. 
B.  M.  [4325.  a.] 

1660.     R.  Blome.  — The  Fanatick  History;  or,  an  Exact  relation  and  account  of  the  old  Anabaptists,  and      251 
the  New  Quakers,  etc.    8^,  pp.  x,  224. 
B.  M.  [E.  1832.  (2.)] 

1660.     A  Brief  Confession  or  Declaration  of  Faith  (lately  presented  to  King  Charles  the  Second)  set  forth      252 
[20  Jttlj]     by  many  of  us  who  are  (falsly)  called  Anabaptists,  etc.     [single  sheet]  fol. 
B,  M.  [E.  (fol.)  18.  (63.)] 

1660.     G.  Pressick.  —  A  Briefe  Relation  of  some  of  the  most  remarkable  passages  of  the  Anabaptists  in      253 
pa  Not.]     Hitih  and  Low  Germany  in  the  year  1521,  etc.     Dublin,  4*^,  pp.  iv,  20. 
B.M.LE.  1047.(5)] 

1660.     The  Humble  Apology  of  some  commonly  called  Anabaptists,  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  others  of      254 
[28J»o.]     the  same  Judgment  with  them;  W'wVi  \hc\r  Protestation  against  the  late  wicked  and  most  horrid 
treasonable  Insurrection  and  Rebellion  acted  in  the  City  of  London.      Together  with  an  Apol- 
ogy formerly  presented  to  the  Kings  most  Excellent  Majesty,  etc.     4°,  pp.  18. 
B.  M.  [E.  1057.  (i.)] 

1660.    The  Way  to  True  Peace,  ora  Calm,  Seasonable,  and  Modest  Word  in  Love  to  the  Independent  Pha-      255 
[•3J»n.]     naticks,  Anabaptists,  Presbyterians,  Quakers,  etc.     4°,  pp.  8. 
B.  M.  [E.  1057.  (2.)J 

1660.  The  Character  of  an  Anabaptist,     [single  sheet]  fol.  256 
[29J.il.]         B.  M.  [669.  f.  26.  (51.)] 

1661.  J.  Got;GHE.  — EcclesicE  AnglicancB  Threnodia:  in  qua  perturbatissimus  Regni.  et  Ecclesije  status      257 

sub  Anabaptistica  Tyrannide  lugetur.     8°,  pp.  iv,  160. 
B.  M.  [E.  1814.  (2.)] 

1661.     H.  Adis.  — A  Fanaticks  Alarm,  given  to  the  Mayor  in  his  quarters  by  one  of  the  Sons  of  Zion  .  .  .      258 
H.  A.  a  Baptized  believer,  undergoing  the  name  of  a  Free-Wilier,  and  also  most  ignoininiously 
by  the  tongue  of  Infamy  called  a  Fanatick,  or  a  Mad  Man.     4°,  pp.  56. 
B.  M.  [701.  g.  45.] 

1661.    Semper  lident :  or,  a  Parallel  betwixt  the  Ancient  and  Modern  Fanaticks,  etc,    4°,  pp.  24,  259 

Bodleian,  [Pamph.  125.] 

1661.    J.Griffith.  —  A  Complaint  of  the  Oppressed  against  the  Oppressor.    4°.    [Taylor,  i :  244.]  260 

1661.  Thomas  Venner,  Orator  Conventiculorum  Regni  Millenarii  et  Libertinorum,  Seductor  et  Capitaneus      261 

Sediiiosor,  Anabapiistarum  et  Quackerorum  in  Civitat.  Londineiis.  etc.     4°. 
B.  M.  [K.  i3i.b.  23.] 

1662.  Behold  a  Cr>';  or,  a  True  Relation  of  the  inhuman  and  violent  outrages  of  divers  Soldiers,  Consta-      262 

bles  and  others,  practised  upon  many  of  the  Lords  people,  commonly,  tho'  falsely  called  Anabap- 
tists, at  their  several  meetings  in  and  about  London,  etc.    8°.     ICrosiy,  ii :  160.] 

[1662.]  [T.  Grantham.]  —  The  Prisoner  against  the  Prelate ;  or  a  Dialogue  between  the  Common  Gaol  and      263 
Cathedral  of  l.iiicolii :  wherein  the  true   Faith  and  Church  of  Christ  are  brietly  discovered  and 
vindicated,  by  the  authority  of  Scripture,  Sul^rages  of  Antiquity,  Concessions  and  Confessions  of 
the  Chief  Opjiosers  of  the  same   Church   and   Faith.     Written   by   a   Prisoner  of    the  Baptized 
Churches  in  Lincolnshire,     [s.  1.]  S°.     [Taylor,  i:  iqS;   H^atl,  s.  n.] 

1663.  Propositions  concerning  the  Subject  of  Baptism,  and  Consociation-of  Churches,  etc.  by  a  Synod  at      264 

Boston  in  New  England,  etc.     Cambridge,  N.  E.     4°,  pp.  48. 
B.  M.  [701.  i.  9.  (i.)] 

1662.     C.  Chauncy.  —  Anti-Synodalia  Scripta  Americana;  ora  Proposal  of  the  Judgment  of  the  Dis-      265 
senting  Messengers  of  the  Churches  of  N.  England,  etc.    Cambridge,  N.  E.    4°,  pp.  38. 
[Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Lib.] 


[lOl] 


1663.     J.  Davenport.  —  Another  Essay  for  Investication  of  the  Truth  !n  Answer  to  Two  Questions,  con-      266 
cerning  (1)  The  Svbject  of  Baptism,  (2)  the  Consociation  of  Churches,  etc.     Cambridge,  N.  E. 
4°,  pp.  xvi,  72. 
B.  M.  [4183.  aa.] 

1663.  T.  Shepard.  — The  Church-membership  of  Children,  and  their  Right  to  Baptisme.     Cambridge,  N.      267 

E.     4°,  pp.  xxii,  26. 
Prince  Library,  [27.  83.] 

1664.  [B.  Reach.]  —  Tlie  Child's  Instructor;  or,  a  new  and  easy  Primmer,  etc.   16°.     [teaches  that  infants      268 

should  not  be  baptized,  etc.]     [Cros6y,u:  1S6.] 

1664.     J.  Allin.  — Animadversions  upon  the  Antisynodalia  [no.  265],  etc.  in  the  name  of  the  Dissenting      269 
Brethren,  etc.     Cambridge,  N.  E.     4°,  pp.  vi,  S2. 
Prince  Library,  [27.  85.] 

1664.  [J.    Mitchell  &  R.   Mather.]  — A  Defence  of  the  Answer  and  Arguments  of  the  Synod  met  at      270 

Boston  in  the  year  1662,  concerning  the  Svbject  of  Baptism,  etc.  .  .  .  against  the  keplv  made 
thereto  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  J.  Davenport  ...  in  his  Treatise  entituled  Another  Essay  [no.  266J,  etc 
Cambridi;e,  N.  E.     4^,  pp.  ii,  46,  102. 
B.  M.  [701.  i.  9.  (2.)J 

1665.  J.  Ives.  —  Infant  Baptism  Disproved,  and  Believers  Baptism  Proved,  etc.     4°.     \_]Vait,  s.  n.]  271 

1665.     Collection  of  the  Testimonies  of  the  Fathers  of  the  New  England  Churches  respecting  Baptism,  etc.      272 
Cambridge,  N.  E.     4°,  pp.  32.     \Trans.  Amcr.  Atitiq.  Soc.  vl :  315.] 

166S.     [J.  S]  [coTTOW.]  —  Translation  of  a  portion  of  G.  de  Brez's  Rise,  Spring  and  Foundation  of  the      273 
Anabaptists,  or  Rebajnized  of  our  Times,  etc.     Cambridge,  N.  E.     4",  pp.  52. 
[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1669.    T.  Wall.  —  A  Necessary  Treatise  for  this  age,  or  a  Plain  Discovery  of  that  great  Error  of  Denying      274 
Baptisme  with  Water  to  the  Children  of  Believers,  etc.     ib'^,  pp.  52. 
B.  M.  [loiS.  c.  13.  (i.)J 

1669.  M.  Crafordius. — Exercltatio  Apologetica.     Pro  doctrina  de  perpetua  obligatione  quarti  pracepti      275 

de  Sabbato,  ab  Ecclesiis  Reformatis  conimuuiter  recepta,  etc.  adversus  Socinianos,  Anabaptistas, 
etc.    Ultraject.     S°. 
[I  have  it.] 

[1670.]  J.  NoRCOTT.  —  Baptism  Discovered  Plainly  and  Faithfully  According  to  the  Word  of  God,  etc.    4°.      276 
[several  times  reprinted,  f.^.  1694,  1721,  1722,  1723,  1S78.] 

1670.  J.  Whistom.  —  Infant  Baptism  from  Heaven,  and  not  of  Men,  etc.    8°,  pp.  xlvi,  320.  277 

B.  M.  [4323.  a.  (i.)] 

1671.  T.  Lawson.  —  A  Treatise  concerning  Baptism ;  with  a  Discourse  concerning  the  Supper-Bread  and      278 

wiile  called  also  Communion,  etc.     4°.     [ll^'aii,  s.  11.] 

1672.  [T.  R.]ruDVARD.] — The  Anabaptists  Lying  Wonder  attested  by  his  Brother  Independent,  returned      279 

upon  themselves,  etc.     4°,  pp.  16. 
B.  M.  [4151.  b.] 

1672.     [T.  R.]  [UDVARD.]  — The  Anabaptist  Preacher  unmask'd,  in  a  further  Discovery  of  his  Lying  Won-      280 
der  out  of  Lincolnshire:  as  also  the  News  from  Richard  Hobbs,  an  Anabaptist  Preacher  in  Dover, 
examined.     Their  ju'zgles.  Lyes,  and  Deceits  detected,  etc.     4'-',  pp.  20. 
B.  M.  [no.  j.  242.  (3.)] 

1672.     L.Howard. — A  Looking  Glass  for  the  Baptists,  etc.     [  TVzyA^r,  i :  99,  etc.]  281 

1672.     G.  Whitehead. — The  Dipper  Plunged;  or,  Thomas  H\cks  his  feigneA  DtnU^te  ie/rveen  a  C/tr:'s-      282 
tian  and  a  Quaker,  etc.  proved  an  unchristian  forgery,  etc.     4°,  pp.  20.     [Smith's  Friends  Books, 
ii:893.] 

1672.  [E.  N.]  —  Truth  is  strongest,  or  Infant  Baptism  once  more  soberly  Examined,  fairly  Tryed  and      283 

justly  Censured.     Being  Reflections  on  two  sermons  by  Mr.  Sharp  on  behalf  of  J.  B.  etc.    4-'. 

1673.  H.Collins. — An  Antidote  to  prevent  the  Prcvalency  of  Anabaptism,  etc.     4°.     [/A'a/^,  s.  n.]  284 

1673.     Mr.  Baxter  Baptized  in  Bloud,  or,  a  Sad   Historj'of  the  Unparallel'd  Cruelty  of  the  .Anabaptists  in      285 
New  England.     Faithfully  Relating  the  Cruel,  Barbarous,  and  Bloudy  Murther  of  Mr.  Baxter  an 
Orthodox  Minister,  who  was  kill'd  by  the  Anabaptists,  and  his  skin  most  cruelly  flead  off  from  his 
Body,  etc.     4*^,  pp.  6. 
(One  sold  in  the  Brinley  Collection.] 

1673.     Forgery  Detected,  and  Innocency  Vindicated:  Being  a  faithfull  account  of  the  seasonable  Discovery      286 
of  an  horrid  and  detestible  slander  raised  on  the  Anabaptists  of  New  England,  in  that  diabolicjil 
pamphlet  entituled  Mr.  Baxter  [no.  2S5J,  etc.     4°,  pp.  16. 
B.  M.  [4323.  b.] 
1673.     J.  BuNVAN.  —  Differences  in   Judgment  about  Water  Baptism  do  bar  to  Communion,  etc    8°,  pp.      287 
122.     ("  Here  is  also  Mr.  H.  Jesses  Judgment,"  etc] 
B.  M.  [4327-  b.l 


[l02] 

1674.    T.   Plant. —An  Account  of  the  two  Meetings  at  Parbican  and  Wheeler's  Street,  on  account  of      288 
the  Quakers'  Appeal  to  the   baptists  against  Thomas  Hicks  [see  no.  2S2I,  etc.     4°.      Uvimey, 
11:443] 

1674.     B.  Keach.  —  Mr.  Baxter's  Arguments  for  Believers  Baptism,  etc.    [single  sheet.]    [Crosby,  iv:  276.]      289 

1674.    T.Grantham.— The  Loyal  Baptist;  or  an  Apology  for  the  Baptized  Believers,  etc.     [iVatt.s.  n.      290 
Croiby,  IV :  vi.] 

1674.     D.    Dyke. —  The  Quakers  Appeal  Answered:    or,  a  full  Relation  of  the  occasion,  progress,  and      291 
issue  of  a  meetuig  at  Barbican  between  the  Baptists  and  the  Quakers,  etc.     8^.     {.Crosby,  i:  359.] 

1674.     H.  D'.-Vnvers.  — A  Treatise  of  Baptism,  etc.     S'^,  pp.  xlviii,  3SS.  202 

B.  M.  [874.  d.  34.(1.)]  ""^ 

J674.     J.  Grattan.  —  John  Baptist  Decreasing,  and  Christ  increasing,  etc.     8°.  203 

Lcited  by  Barclay,  Inner  Life,  etc.  p.  37i>.J 

1674.  O.  Wills. —  Infant  Baptism  asserted  and  vindicated  by  Scripture,  and  Antiquitv:  in  answer  to  H.      204 

I>.  [no   292],  etc.  ' 

Bodleian,  [8-',  Z.  22.  Th.] 

1675.  I.  Mather.  — The  First  Principles  of  New  England,  concerning  the  Subject  of  Baptisme  &  Com-      295 

munion  of  Churches,  etc.     Cambridge,  N.  E.     4^,  pp.  viii,  40,  8. 
B.  M.  [41S3.  b.J 

1675.     I.  Mather.  —A  Discourse  concerning  the  Subject  of  Baptisme,  Wherein  the  present  Controversies,      296 
elc.  in  ihe  New  iMi-land  Churches  are  enquired  into.     Cambridge,  N.  E.     4'^,  dd  iv   76 
Bodleian,  [Mather,  4-,  lo.j  ^  .  w       .  7  • 

1675.     Fifty  Queries  seriously  propounded  to  those  who  question  or  deny  Infants  right  to  Baptism.     12°.  297 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1675.     O.  Wills.  —  Viiidicia  l^ indie iarum:  or,  a  Vindication  of  a  late  Treatise,  entiluled.  Infant  Bap-      298 
tism  Asserted  \\w   2Q4J,  etc.     j 6^,  pp.  viii,  200. 
Bodleian,  [S^  Z.  22.  Th.J 

1675.     R.  Baxter.  —  More  Proofs  of  Infant  Church-Membership,  and  consequently  of  their  right  to  Bap-      2qq 
tisni,  etc.     8°,  pp.  xiv,  414.  ^  ^  =  k-        aa 

B.  M.  [4326.  b.] 

1675.    Arguments  Pro  and  Con  about  the  right  of  Baptizing:  Whether  it  ought  to  be  by  putting  the  whole      300 
Bodv  under  water,  etc.     [single  sheet.]     fol. 
B.  M.  [816.  m.  24.  (24.)] 

1675.     R.  Blinman.  —  A  Rejoynder  to  Mr.  Henry  D'Anvers  his  Brief  Friendly  Reply  to  my  Answer  about      301 
Infant  Baptism,  etc.     24°.     \.Ailibotie,%.\\.\ 

1675.    T.  Grantham.  —  Mr.  Home  Answered;  or,  Pasdo-Rantism  not  from  Zion  ;  wherein  is  shewed  his      302 
mislake  about  the  reason  of  his  writing;  and  the  insufficiencv  of  his  evidence  ailedged  to  prove 
Infant-Baptism  descended  from  Zion  [no.  1S3],  briefly  discovered,  etc.  4°,  pp.  30.   [Taylor,  i:  482.] 

1675.  D.  DvKE.— The  Baptists  Answer  to  Mr.  Wills' Appeal  [no.  294],  etc.     8°.     [Croi/Sy,  i:  359.]  303 

1675-    J-  ToMBES.  —  A  Just  Reply  to  the  books  of  Mr.  Wills  [no.  294]  and  Mr.  Blinman  [no.  301],  for  In-      304 
fant-baptisra;  in  a  Letter  to  Henry  D'Anvers,  Esq.     S^.     [Crosby,  i:  297.] 

1676.  J.  Whiston.  —  An  Essay  to  revive  the  Primitive  Doctrine  and  Practice  of  Infant  Baptism.     8*^.  30s 

Bodleian,  [8°,  Z.  23.  Th.] 

1676.     R.  Baxter.  —  A  Review  of  the  State  of  Christian  Infants,  etc.     12°.  306 

Bodleian,  [8^,  C.  125.  Th.] 

1676.     E.  Hutchinson. — A  Treatise  concerning  the  Covenant  and  Baptism  Dialogue-wise,  between   a      307 
Baptist  and  a  Pado-baptist ;  wherein  is  shewed  that  Believers  only  are  the  Spirituall  seed  of  Abra- 
ham .  .  .  with  some  animadversions  upon  a  book  Intituled  InfantBaptism  frovi  Heaven  [no. 
277],  etc.     8^,  pp.  xxviii,  loS. 
B.  M.  [S74.  d.  32.] 

1676.     W.  Russell. — An  Epistle  concerning  Baptism,  in  answer  to   two  Treatises  published  by  Mr.  T.      308 
James,  Teacher  of  a  Congregation  at  Ashford  in  Kent,  etc.     [Crosby,  iv:  261. J 

1676.     W.  Allen.  — A  Friendly  Address  to  the  Nonconformists,  beginning  with  the  Anabaptists,  etc.     8^.      309 
[Watt,  s.  n.] 

1676.     O.  Wills.  —  A  Censure  of  the  Sentence  of  the  Baptists  upon  an  Appc.il  made  against  H.  D'Anvers.      310 
4°.     [Watt,  s.  n.] 

1676.     T.  Delaune.  —  Mr.  R.  Baxter's  Review  0/ the  State  0/ Christian  In/ants  [no.  306],  etc.  examined,       311 
etc      I2^ 
[Dr.  Williams's  Library-.] 


[i03] 


1677.     W-  Wai.kfr. — A  !\foclest  Pica  for  Infants  Baptism,  Wherein  the  lawfulness  of  the  baptizing  of      312 
Infant-;  ir;  defended  against  the  Anti-pa;dobaplisls,  etc.     Cambridge,  S^. 
B.  M.  [4323.  aa.] 

1677.  A  Confession  of  Faith,  Put  forth  by  the  Elders  and  Brethren  of  many  Congrepations  of  Christians      313 

(baptized  upon  Profession  of  their  Faith) in  London,  and  the  country,  etc.     16^,  pp.  xiv,  142. 
V>.  M.  [3505.  aa.  6.] 

1678.  [J.  St  NicHOLAS.l  —  The  History  of  Baptism,  or,  One  Faith,  one  Baptism,  in  the  several  Editions      314 

thereof,  under  Noah,  Moses,  Christ;  with  an  Apytendix,  cnlhled  Jia/iisi/ius  Jiedtvivits,  elc.     S'', 
pp.  viii,  20,  vi,  loS,  xxix. 
Prince  Library,  [12.  40.  41.] 

167S.     An  Abstract  of  Mr.  Baxter's  Plain  Scripture  Proof  {x\o%.  135,  299],  etc.     12°.  315 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library,] 

1678.     Some  Brief  Directions  for  Improvement  of  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     12°.  316 

IDr.  Willinms's  Librarj'.] 

167S.     T.  Grantham.  —  C/iristianismus  Primitivus ;  orthe  Ancient  Christian  Religion,  etc.  [  ll^atl,  s  n  ]      317 

1678.  W.  Walker. — The  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,  or  a  Discourse  of  Dipping  and  Sprinkling,  etc.      S^.      318 

[li^att,  s.  n.] 

1679.  J.  Eliot.  — A  Brief  Answer  to  a  .Small  Book  written  by  John  Norcot  [no.  276]  against  Infan:-Bap-      319 

tisme.  This  Answer  is  written  by  John  Eliot  for  the  Sake  of  Some  of  the  Flock  of  Jesus  Cliri>t 
who  are  ready  to  be  staggered  in  point  of  Iiijant  Baptistn  by  reading  his  Book.  Boston,  N.  E. 
8°,  pp.  ii,  23. 

[A  copy  was  sold  with  the  Brinley  Collection,  which  fetched  S130.00.] 

16S0.     S.  Mather.  —  An  Irenicum  ;   or  an  essay  for  union  between  Presbyterians,   Independents  and      320 
Anabaptists,  etc.     4°. 

Bodleian,  [Ashm.  12 10.  (4.)] 

16S0.     T.  Grantham.  —  Epistle  for  Plain  Truth  and  Peace  between  the  Protestants  of  the  Church  of  Eng-      321 
land  and  those  of  the  Baptized  Believers,  etc.     S-".     [ll^ati,  s.  n.] 

1680.  R.  Rich  — The  Epistles  of  Mr.  Robert  Rich  to  the  seven  Churches  (so  called  by  him),  viz. :  (i)  To      322 

the  Roman  Catholics;  (3)  The  Episco|ial  Protestant;  (3)  The  Presbvtcrian  ;  (4) 'I'he  Independent; 
(5)  The  .Anabaptist;  ('))  rhe  Quaker  ;  (7)  The  Church  of  the  First  Born,  etc.     4-',  pp.  xx,  116. 
B.  M.  [4151.  aaaa.  (6.)] 

16S0.     I.  Mather. — The  Divine  Right  of  Infant-Baptisme  Asserted  and  Proved  from  Scripture  and  .\n-      323 
tiquity,  etc.     4^,  pp.  viii,  2S. 
B.  M.  [43-3-  ana-] 

16S0.    T.  Grantham.  —  The  Controversie  about  Infants  Church  Membership  and  Baptism  epitomized,  etc.      324 
4°.  PP-  36. 
B.  M.  [4325.  aaa.] 

1681.  S.  WiLLARD. — Ne  Sutor  ultra  Crefiidain.      Or   Brief   Animadver.<iions  upon   the   New-Encland      325 

Anabaptists  late  Fallacious  Narrative  Isee  Backus's  II ist.  N.  Eng  i :  490];   wherein  the  Notorious 
Mistakes  and  Falsehoods  by  them  Published,  are  detected.     Boston,  N.  K.     4",  pp.  viii,  2S. 
B.  M.  [41S3.  b.] 

168 1.     The  J^-eacherous  Anabaptist:    or,   The    Dipper    Dipt.      A   New  Protestant   Ballad,  etc.      [single      326 
sheet]  fol. 

B.  M.  [1872.  a.  I.  (91.)] 

1681.     N.  Coxe.  —  A  Discourse  of  the  Covenants  that  God  made  with  Men  before  the  Law:  wherein  the      327 
Covenant  of  Circumcision  is  more  largely  handled,  and  the  Invalidity  of  the  Plea  for  Pxdobaptism 
taken  from  thence  discovered,  etc.     8-".     \Ivitney,\\:  ■\o(,.\ 

1681.     W.  KiFFiM. — A  Sober  Discourse  of  Right  to  Church  Communion,  wherein  is  proved  .  .  .  that  no      328 
unbaptized  Person  may  be  regularly  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  etc.     4°.     [Ivitney,  iii :  315.] 

1681.     N.  Collins.  —  A  Sermon  Preached  at  the  Ordination  of  an  Elder  and  Deacon  in  a  Baptist  Congre-      329 
gatinn  in  London,  etc.     4-,  pp.  40. 
[Mass.  Histor.  Soc.'s  Library.] 

1683.     N.Taylor.  —  The  Baptism  of  Infants  Vindicated,  etc.     8°.  330 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1683.     [G.  FiK.MiN.]  —  The  Plea  of  Children  of  Believing  Parents  for  their  Interest  in  Abraham's  Cov-      33X 
enant,  their  Right  to  Church-membership  with  their  parents,  etc.  in  answerlo  Mr.  D'Anvers  [no. 
292],  etc. 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1683.     G.  HicKES. — The   Case   of    Infant    Baptism,  in    Five   Questions,   etc.     4°,  pp.  ii,  94.      [Qursi.   3:       332 
"  Whether  is  it  l.iwful  to  scpaiate  from  a  Church  which  appoiuteth  Infants  to  be  Baptized  ?  "J 
B.  M.  I701.  i.  9.  (3.)J 


[i04] 


1684.     R.  BiTRTHor.GB.  —  Arguments  for  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     8°.  333 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library] 

[i685.][T.  Grantham. 1 —The  Baptists  Complaint  against  the  Persecuting  Priests,  etc.     [MS.l    [CrosSy,      334 
iii :  84;    Taylor,  i:  20S.J 

1687.     G.  TowERSON.  —  Of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  in  particular:  of  the  right  of  Baptism  among  the      335 
Heathens  and  Jews,  and  of  the  Institution  of  Christian  Ijaptism,  elc.     [U^aii,  s.  n.] 

1687.    T.  Grantham.  —  Presumption  no  Proof,  etc.     4°.     [a  reply  against  Infant-baptism  to  Mr.  Petto  and      336 
'        Mr.  Kirmin.J     [Taylor,  i:  213.] 

16S7.    T.  Grantham.  —  Hear  the  Church  t  or,  an  Appeal  to  the  Mother  of  us  all.     Being  an  Epistle  to      337 
all  the  Baptized  Believers  in  England,  etc.     4'^.     [Taylor,  i:  214.] 

1687.     Infant  Baptism  of  Christ's  .Appointment,  etc.     12°.  338 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1687.  O.  Hi:ywood.  —  Baptismal  Bonds  Renewed;  beinc  some  Meditations  on  Ps.  1:  5,  etc.     12°.  330 

H.  M.  [3090.  b.J 

1688.  VV.  Pardoe  —  Ancient  Christianity  Revived ;  being  a  Description  of  the  Doctrine,  Discipline,  and      340 

Practice  of  the  little  City  Bcthania,  etc.  .  .  .   By  one  of  her  Inhabitants,  who  desirelh  to  worship 
God  after  the  way  which  some  men  call  heresie,  etc.     12°.     [Ivtmey,\\:  5S0.] 

[16SS.]  Three  Considerations  proposed  to  Mr.  W.  Penn,  concerning  the  Validity  and  Security  of  his  new      341 
Mas:na  Lliarta  for  Liberty  of  Conscience.     By  a  Baptist.     4''. 
B.  M.  [T.  692.  (6.)J 

1688.     An  Answer  by  an  Anabaptist  to  the  Three  Considerations  [no.  341],  etc.  by  a  pretended  Baptist,      342 
etc.     8°. 

Bodleian,  [G.  Pamph.  1785.  (4.)] 

1688.     G.  FitiMiN.  —  Scripture-Warrant  Sufficient  Proof  for  Infant-Baptism,  etc.    4°.  343 

[Ur.  Williams's  Library.] 

1688.  T.  Grantham.  — The  Infants  Advocate,  etc.  in  answer  to  a  book  of  Mr.  G.  F.'s,  entitled  Scripture      344 

/<-'rtrrrt«^  [no.  343],  etc.     4°. 
B.  M.  [4323.  b.J 

1689.  P.  Tillinghast.  —  Water-Baptism  Plainly  Proved  by  Scripture  to  be  a  Gospel  Precept,  etc.    4°,      345 

pp.  16.  _ 

[.'\mer.  Antiqn.  Soc.'s  Library.] 

16S9.     B.  Reach.  —  Gold  Refin'd;  or  Baptism  in  its  Primitive  Purity  .  .  .  in  which  it  is  clearly  evinced      346 
that  Baptism  is  not  Aspersion,  etc.     16°,  pp.  viii,  184. 
B.  M.  [4326.  a.] 

1689.     A  Narrative  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Divers  Pastors,  Messengers,  and  Min-      347 
istring  Brethren  of  the  Baptized  Churches,  met  together  in  London  from  Sept.  3  to  12,  16S9,  etc. 
owning  the  Doctrine  of  Personal  EUection  and  final  Perseverance.     Sent  from  and  concerned  for 
more  than  one  hundred  conerecations,  etc.     4°,  pp.  30. 
B.  M.  [4.39.  c] 

1689.    T.  Grantham. —  A  Friendly  Debate  concerning  Infant  Baptism,  being  an  answer  to  Dr.  Hickes      348 
Case  [no.  3.^2],  etc.     4°. 
[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1689.  G.  FiR.MiN.  —  An  Answer  to  the  vain  and  unprofitable  Question  put  to  him,  and  charged  upon  him      349 

by  Mr.  Grantham  in  his  book  intituled  Tlu  In/attis  Advocate  [no.  344],  etc.     4°. 

16S9.    T.  Grantham.  —  Truth  and  Peace;  or  the  last  and  most  Friendly  Debate  concerning  Infant  Bap-      350 
tism,  etc.     8°.     [Taylor,  i :  316.] 

[1689.]  J.  Owen.  — Infant  Baptism  from  Heaven,  etc.     [in  Welsh  ]    [hn/ney,  ii:  385.]  351 

[1689.]  B.  Keach.  —  Light  broke  forth  in  Wales,  etc.  in  reply  to  Mr.  Owen's  In/ant  [no.  351],  etc.     [in      352 
Welsh  and  English.]     [lvimcy,\\:  i^s-] 

ibqo.    [Mn.  Cary.]  — A  Solerane  Call  to  Baptisme,  etc.     8°.     [IVait,  s.  ■n.'\  353 

1690.  T.  Wall.  —  Baptism   Anatomized:    being  Propounded  in  five  Queries,  viz. :  (i)  What  Water  Bap-      354 

tism  is  ?  (2)  What  is  the  end  for  which  it  is  instituted  ?  (3)  What  giveth  right  to  it  ?  (.()  Who  are  the 
true  administrators  of  it  ?  (5)  Whether  it  be  lawful  for  a  man  to  baptize  himself  ?    8^. 

1690.    J.   Whiston. — The  right  method  for  the  Proving  of   Infant-Baptism.     With  reflections  on  some      355 
late  Tracts  on  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     8°,  pp.  72. 
Bodleian,  [Pamph.  19S.] 

1690.     A  Brief  History  of  the  Rise,  Growth,  Reign,  Supports  and  Sodain  fatal  Foyl  of  Poperj',  during  the      356 
years  and  an  half  of  James  the  Second,  etc.   Together  with  a  Description  of  the  Six  Pojnsh  Pillars : 
the  Anabaptists,  Presbyterians,  Quakers,   Independents,  Roraan-Calholicks  &  Popish  Churchmen, 
etc     4°,  pp.  ii,  34. 
Bodleian,  [Pamph.  199.] 


[105] 


i6</j.     Primitive  r.aptis;m,  and  therein  Infants  and  Parents  right.     12°.  qm 

Bodleian,  (S-',  Z.  267.  Th.J 

1691.     II.   Collins.  —  Believers-Baptism  from  Heaven,  and  of  Divine  institution;  Infants- Baptism  from      358 
earth  and  human  invention.     Proved  from  the  Commission  of  Christ,  etc.  with  a  Brief,  yet  suffi- 
cient Answer  to  T.  Wall's  book  called  Baptistn  A  natoinized  [no.  354],  etc.     16°,  pp.  ii,  140. 
B.  M.  [4323.  a.] 

1691.     S.   Petto.  —  Infant-Baptism  Vindicated  from  the   exceptions  of   Thomas  Grantham  [no.   336?],      359 
etc.     S  . 

B.  M.  [loiS.  d.  20.(2.)] 

[1691.]  J.  Flavel.  —  A  Treatise  on  Baptism,  etc.     4°.  360 

1691.     A  Narrative  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Baptized  Churches,  sent      361 
from  divers  parts  of  England  and  Wales,  which  bcpan  in  London  June  2,  and  ended  on  the  8th  of 
the  same  month,  1691,  Owning    the  Doctrines  of  Personal   Election  and  Final  Perseverance,  etc. 
4^.     [Ivimey,  1:311.] 

1691.     B.  Keach.  —  Pxdo-Baptism.     Being  an  answer  to  the  Athenian  Society,  etc.    4°.   [Cro^i^^,  vi:  312.]      362 

1691.  T.  Grantham.  —  A  Dialogue  between  the  Baptist  and  the  Presbyterian,  etc.     4°,  pp.  50.     [TV^-      363 

lor,  i:  4S2.] 

1692.  T.  Wall. — Infants-Baptism  from  Heaven,  of  divine   institution:    being  a  brief  yet  satisfactory      364 

Answer  to  some  objections  made  by  H.  Collins  in  his  book  entituled  Believer's  Baptism  [no.  358], 
etc.     16^,  pp.  40. 
B.  M.  [4326.  bb.] 

[1692.]  W.   BuRKiT.  —  An   Argumentative  and    Practical   Discourse  of    Infant   Baptism,   etc.      [Ivimey,      365 
ii:  367.] 

1692.     B.  Keach.  —  The  Rector  rectified,  or.  Infants  Baptism  unlawful.     Being  an  Answer  to  Mr.  Burkit      366 
[no.  365],  etc.     8°.     [Crosby,  v'\:  iii..] 

[1692.]  E.  Rothwell.  — A  Vindication  of  Presbyterian  Ordination  and  Baptism,  etc.     8°.  367 

1692.  M.  Strong.  —  The  Indecency  and  Unlawfulness  of  Baptizing  Children  in  Private,  etc.     4°.  [IVatt,      368 

s.  n.] 

[1692.]  G.  Shute.  — An  Antidote  to  prevent  the  Prevalency  of  Anabaptism,  etc.     4°.  369 

1693.  A  Copy  of  a  Brief  Treatise  of  the  proper  subjects  and  Administration  of  Baptism,  etc.     12°.  370 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library.] 

1693.     P.  Stubs.  — A  Sermon  on  Publick  Baptism  before  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London,  etc.     4°.  371 

Bodleian,  [C.  5    12.  Line] 

1693.  A  Narrative  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Elders,  Messengers  and  Ministering  Brethren  of  divers  bap-  372 
tized  Churches  in  England  and  Wales,  holding  the  doctrines  of  Particular  Election  and  Final  Per- 
severance, in  their  General  Assembly  at  Bristol  on  the  igth  of  the  second  month,  called  April, 
1693,  and  continued  to  the  21st.  of  the  same.  Also,  containing  the  Proceedings  of  the  General 
Assembly  held  in  London  the  6ih  day  of  the  4th  month,  called  June,  and  continued  till  the  12th  of 
the  same,  etc.     4"-'.     [Ivimiy,  i:  524.] 


J.  Exell.  —  A  Serious  Inquiry  into  Infant  Baptism,  shewing,  by  plain  Scripture  Proof,  that  John      373 
Baptist  did  as  certainly  baptize  infants  as  Adults,  etc.     4°.     [IVatt,  s.  n.] 

H.Collins.  —  The  Antidoie[\-\o  369]  proved  a  Counterfeit,  or  Error  Detected,  and  Believers  Baiv      374 
tism  Vindicated,  etc.     4°.     [^Ka//,  s.  n.] 

B.  Keach.— The  Ax  laid  to  the  Root;  or  one  Blow  more  at  the  Foundation  of  Infant's  Baptism      375 
and  Church  Membership.     4°.     [Crosby,  wi:  112.] 

B.  Keach.  —The  Ax  laid  to  the  Root,  Part  II.  wherein   Mr.  Flavel's  [no.  siio];  Mr.  Rothwell's      376 
[no.  367],  and  Mr.  Exell's  (no.  373J  Arguments  are  answered,  etc.     4°.     [Crosby,  vi:  312.] 

The  Lynn  Persecution,  etc.     4°.     [TVy/or,  i :  215.]  377 

C.  Doe  — The  Reason  why  not  Infant-Sprinkling,  but  Believers  Baptism  ought  to  be  approved,  etc.       378 
.  .  .  To  which  is  added  How  Infant  .Sprmkling  came  in  Fashion:  The  Evil  Tendencies  of  Infant 
Sprinkling:  Differences  between  Believers  Baptism  and  Infant  Sprinkling,  etc.     iti^,  pp.  84. 

[Mass.  Hist.  Soc.'s  Lib.] 

1694.     J    Ollvffe.  —  A  Brief  Defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  with  an  Appendix,  etc.     4°.  370 

B.  M   [47S.  a.  29.  (3.)] 

[1694  ]  G.  Fii;min  — Some   Remarks  u)ion  the  Anabaptists  Answer  to  the  Athenian   Mercuries,  etc.     4".       380 
[-V.  E   Hist.  &'  Gen.  Kci;.  xxv:  56  ) 

1694.     B.  Keach.  —  A  Counter  Antidote:  or,  an  Answer  to  Shutc's  Antiilote  to  prevent  the  Prevalency  0/     381 
./^/ttiAj//u>«  [no.  369],  etc.     4^.     [Crosby,  y'\:  ii2.\ 


■693 
1693 
1693 
1693 

■  693 
•693 


[io6] 


1695.     G.  Shute.  —  Infant  Taptism  and  Church  Membership  proved;  and  also  the  Mode  of  Baptism  to  be      382 
by  Sprinklinp,  etc.     12^. 
I'odleian,  (Pamph.  218.] 

1695.  W.  AssHETON.  —  Conference  with  an  Anabaptist,  etc.     18°.  383 
[1695.]  H.  Collins. — The  Sandy  Foundation  of  Infants  Baptism  shaken,  etc.     4°.     [Crosiy,  iu:  130.]  384 

1696.  M.  Harrison. — Infant  Baptism  God's  Ordinance,  etc.     With  a  Rebuke  of  several  erroneous  opin-      385 

ions  the  Arminian  Anabaptists  hold  concerning  Onginal  Sin,  etc.  being  an  answer  to  the  Anabap- 
tists, and  Mr.  Collins  his  Sandy  Fouudat ion  [no.  384],  etc.     16-',  pp.  xiv,  50. 
Prince  Library,  [28.  32.] 

1696.  R.  Barclay.  —  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  substantially  asserted.     Being  an  Apology  in  behalf      386 

of  the  People  called  Quakers  concerning  these  two  heads,  etc.     S^,  pp.  68. 
[Amer.  Antiqn.  Soc.  Library.] 

1697.  E.  Reach.  — A  Short  Confession  of  Faith,  containing  the  substance  of  the  Larger,  put  forth  by  the      387 

Elders  of  the  Baptized  Churches,  etc.     24°. 
(Brown  University  Library.] 

1698.  G.  Keith. — The  Arguments  of  the  Quakers,  more  particularly,  of  G.  Whitehead,  W.   Pcnn,  R.      3S8 

Barclav,  etc.  against  Baptism  and  the  Supper,  examined  and  refuted,  etc.     4°,  pp.  120. 
B.  M.  I4152.  e.] 

1698.     A  Discourse  on  Infant  Baptism,  by  way  of  Dialogue,  etc.     12°.  389 

[Dr.  Williams's  Library] 

[1698-9.]  [W.  Russell.]  —  A  True  Narrative  of  the  Portsmouth  Disputation  between  some  Ministers  of  the      390 
Presbyterians,  and  others  of  the  Baptist  persuasion,  concerning  the  Subjects  and  Manner  of  Bap- 
tism, etc.     4''.     [Crosby,  m:  ii'i.l 


391 


1699.     S.  Chandler,  W.   Leigh  &  B.  Robinson. — An  Impartial  Account  of  the  Portsmouth  Disputa- 
tion.    With  some  just  Reflections  on   Dr.   Russell's  Pretended  Narrative  [no.  390J,  etc.  with  an 
healing  Preface  to  the  sober  Anabaptists.     8°,  pp.  xvi,  102. 
[I  have  it.] 

1699.     A  Confession  of  Faith  put  forth  by  the  Elders  and  Brethren  of  many  Congregations  of  Christians,      392 
(bajnized  upon   profession  of  their  faith)  in  London  and  the  Countr)',  etc.     24^,  pp.  xxiv,  106,  ii. 
[another  edition  of  no.  313.] 

1699.     [F.  Catroi;.]  —  Histoire  des  Anabaptistes ;  contenant  leur  Doctrine,  les  diverses  Opinions,  qui  les      393 
divisant  en  plusieurs  sects,  les  Troubles,  qu'ils  ont  causez,  et  Jiifin  tout  ce  qui  s'esl  passd  de  plus 
considerable  k  leur  egard,  depuisl'an  1521  jusques  a  present.     Amsterdam,  12^. 
B.  M.  [856.1  15.] 

1699.    J.  Turner.  — A  Vindication  of  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     4°.     [IVaii,  s.  n.]  394 

1699.  T.  Hewerdine.  —  Some  Plain  Letters  in  the  Defense  of  Infant  Baptism,  etc.     S°.     [ll^ai/,  s.  n.]  395 

1700.  W.  Russell.  —  Infant  Baptism  is  Will- Worship;  being  a  Confutation  of  the  Answer  to  the  Ports-      396 

mouth  Disputation  [no.  391],  etc.     4'^.     [Crosby,  iv:  261.] 

1700.     R.  Holland. — A  Sermon  at  the  Baptizing  of  some  Persons  of  Riper  Years,  on  Acts  ii:  38,  etc.      397 
4°.     [lVaU,s.n.] 

1700.     [T.  Oates.]  —  New  Discovery :  being  his  Letters  to  the  Church  of  the  Baptists,  etc.     4°.     [U'aii,      398 
s.  n.] 

[1700.]  Agreeincnt  of  the  Associated  Ministers  of  the  County  of  Essex  [Eng.]  as  to  Baptism,  etc.     4°.  399 

[Bowdoin  College  Library.] 

1700.     E.  HiTCHiN. — The  Infants  Cause  Vindicated,  etc.     8°.  400 

(Dr.  Williams's  Library  ] 

I1700.]  D.  RussEN.  —  Fundamentals  without  a  Foundation;  or  a  true  picture  of  the  Anabaptists.  401 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


INTER-LI  SPvARY 

LOAN 

1 

APR  19  19^7^ 

r>>  ' ' 

i 

' 

LD  21-32wi-3,'74                               General  Library 
(R7057sl0)476 — A-32                    University  of  California 

Berkeley 

.1    LV  I      '    *w" 


t  1  o7:>  1 


